Afrocentrism (i.e. misinfo on human evolution) is based on our pity for the devastation islam's* >1000yrs of enslavement, "religious" colonialism and genocides caused on African people
* Although there is not the slightest doubt about islam being against Human Rights and having been the worst slave raider/trader history knows about we are still bombarded with sleazy politically correct deceptive excuses of what is the very nature of islam's original genocidal terrorism/robbery/murdering/enslaving evilness. Yes, there was slavery before islam but only islam institutionalized slavery (incl. sex slavery) as its very ideological soul and finance. The root formula of islam is slavery+"infidel" racism+sex segregated rapetivism+anti human rights Sharia/apostasy ban and is the only explanation that fits both the text in the Koran and historical facts. The "peaceful islam" described by pc people and lying imams would never have won any battle or power. Islamic finance/reproduction was solely based on taking slaves. Talking Koranic Arabic, i.e. being muslim, was the religious excuse for taking "infidel" slaves, and actually the most important reason for muslim attacks against non-muslims or wrong-muslims. In Africa it started with smaller scale Jewish slave traders from southern Arabian peninsula but with the introduction of Arabic islam most of the African slave trade became Koranic.
However, this Afrocentrism also contributed to the heavy misinterpretation of evolution that has terribly skewed our understanding of what it is to be human.
From Africans seeing Westerners as gods to Africans seeing Westerners as evil, Africans now have to face the unavoidable fact that they have themselves become "Westerners". However, some Africans still try not to face the mirror and instead turn to the only really true evil, namely islam. Unlike the West's lack of any unified "moral lesson" to Africans, Saudi spread islam is deliberately evil when compared to the most basic Human Rights.
Not only is Saudi Arabia the by far worst environmental polluter per capita, its oil fueled islamic Wahhabism ideology (i.e. based on the origin of islam) is also the worst mind polluter and behind most street jihad globally, performed by 'lone muslim wolves' as well as organized muslim gangs.
And the fact that Human Rights don't approve of evil and hence may not be that attractive for evil personalities as islam is, should not be an excuse. The simple formula is that the more you embrace islam the more evil you become. It also explains why there are so many "nice muslims", i.e. "muslims" who out of ignorance or opportunism distance themselves from true islam while out of fear (apostasy is the worst crime in islam) or opportunism continue to call themselves "proud muslims".
What is a scientific theory?
Focus, presearch and conclusions are all vulnerable to bias/prejudice.
A scientific theory is a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena. It ought to be formulated in such a way that falsification is in principle possible and that it can be used to make predictions. Not every detail of a scientific theory needs to be fully correct (compare Darwin's theory on evolution). A scientific theory is an idea that may be complex but still fits solid data and fills up the unknown/uncertainty between these data, and is suggested or presented as possibly true but not yet known or proven to be true. Later data may completely dismiss the main body of the theory or just slightly alter aspects of it without changing its foundation.
If you are able to be neutral and without prejudice against Klevius you don't need the embarrassing personal data about Klevius below. Just jump down to below the map to continue.
Acknowledgement: Correct him if he is wrong but Klevius seems to have been first* in the world (compare his discussion abt the extremely big brained 280,000 bp (at the least 260,000bp acc. to a Chinese expert but closer to some 200,000+ acc. to Westerners - yet older than any "modern" in Africa) female Jinniushan skull in northern China in his 1992 book) to seriously hypothize and later theorize the fact that cold adaptation (mongoloid features) has been found all over the world (except Australia and some surroundings) among native inhabitants, and that the racial mix and distribution can only be explained by turning the map upside down, i.e. modern humans spreading from the north to the south while interbreeding with archaic ones. Moreover, because we know that humans are more related to chimps than any other primates and that bipedal ape like hominin relatives to humans used to be pygmy sized and with brain capacities similar to or barely exceeding chimps, we also know that brain and body size grew in the north so that our closest relative, the Neanderthal man, had the biggest brain of all yet wasn't capable of anything near certain (northern) aspects of the so called Aurignacian culture (watch up for stretched definitions though). So something more than a big brain was necessary. Initially in 1992 Klevius thought the secret lied in the chimp/hominin hybridization in the jungle/savannah borders and due increase and decrease of size. However, with the discovery of Homo floresiensis in SE Asia it seemed much more likely that the changing island/mainland history there was a much better environment for human brain evolution. And when some of the small brained but clever floresiensis like creatures were freed from their island prisons by decreased sea level due to iceage (and possible changes in the volatile sea bottom over there) they started mixing with their dumb mainland relatives (erectus? - Red Deer Cave?) all the way up to the north (compare Denisovan). And because the western Eurasia was inhabited with Neanderthals and the eastern Eurasia with mongolized erectus, we then got the racial pattern we have today because of backmigration.
Today ALL serious anthropologists agree with Klevius that the simple out of Africa myth is completely misleading. It is against this background "scientists" like Chris Stringer shouldn't be taken seriously anymore - yet BBC uses him as their main commentator! Why? Because he is politically correct in his blindfolded and extremely biased fantasies. There is not the slightest evidence that what we define as humans came "out of Africa". When should we see an African criticize Chris Stringer as the one who criticized Bob Geldof in Klevius previous posting?
* Klevius excuses for thinking he can use his brain in the service of human well being. Yes, it sounds pompostruos but is in fact just the opposite. However, precisely because of the easy way out dismissal strategy many biased people reveal when facing for them uncomfortable analysis, this embarassing self portraial seems necessary. Klevius just happens to tick three important boxes without being able to take personal credit for any of them:
1 One of the biggest well functioning brains in the world (need measurments, scans or transmittor stability?). When Klevius girlfriend tried to lure him into riding horses, he was saved by Finland's biggest riding accessory store's inability to deliver a helmet big enough despite a half bald thin haired skull. Moreover, Klevius skull bones are less robust than most Europeans, i.e. more like East Asians. Klevius scored highest among visitors at Munchen's technological museum on a reaction test. Klevius sister scored highest in IBM's talent hunt and Klevius father was Sweden's perhaps best chessplayer. Klevius uncles had both double degrees in economy and engineering and led two of Finland's biggest companies. When Klevius did the military IQ test in Sweden they didn't tell the scores but the psychologist (that everyone had to face) said 'whatever happens to you in your future life - don't try to blame it on your brain' - which was what he actually did by calling himself 'mentally impaired' e.g. when talking with ordinary people and trying to politely listen to the last sentence although he already got it in the first part of the first sentence (the smart ones among you readers certainly recognize this social "prob. Add to this Klevius upbringing and adult life in the world's most liberal and modern countries without religious or political restrictions/brainwashing. Despite having a lot of social engagement with both sexes no one has accused Klevius of anything even close to inappropriate. Klevius has never been accused of a crime, and the only way to do so seems to be to accuse him in accordance with sharia for defending everyone's Human Right. If this isn't enough for you please read everything Klevius has written. You won't find anything to criticize without using sharia. All in all, these points seem to add some creedence to the value of the thoughts Klevius produces, or...?
2 Because of a series of strange events outside Klevius own control he came not to follow a normal academic career. In fact, his forst contact with a professor was Georg Henrik von Wright (who succeeded Wittgenstein at Cambridge). von Wright's encouragment led to the publishing of Demand for Resources (1992). All in all, this a-academic yet highly theoretical approach of Klevius left him without academic bias. That's also why Klevius definition of science and its methodologies and methods lack the usual "amendments" used to open up for subjectivism/bias in favor of a particular but supposedly hidden agenda.
3 Being a bi-lingual (Swedish/Finnish) Finland Swede born in Sweden with a Finnish mother (Helsinki) and Swedish father (Gothenburg) Klevius had no problem to be a non-socialist a-theist in accordance with what his intelligence saw as the only possible way of building a morality that covered every human being, hence excluding racism and sexism.
Some common abbreviations used by genetists on human evolution:
ENA Eastern non African
ANE Ancient North Eurasian
WHG West European Hunter-Gatherer
MHG Mesolithic Hunter Gatherer
To describe the situation right now Klevius comments on recent comments made by genetists re. the DNA of a 36,000 bp modern human from Kostenki (K14) in the European part of Russia (the proposed home area of Uralic languages):
Denisova harbors something chimp-like that isn't shared with the Altai Neanderthal. This might be a signal of the introgression from an unidentified archaic hominin.
Klevius answer/comment: Floresiensis* (from SE Asia and dating from at least 38,000 to 13,000 bp with associated tools from 95,000 bp) was 'chimp-like' except for being a slightly better bipedal walker and a much better thinker although with the same brain volume as a chimp. Btw, it was islam that contributed to the theft and destruction of important parts of the religiously contentious material (in the form of muslim Indonesia's head anthropologist Teuku Jacob of the time).
* Do note that because of the mainly religiously motivated/sponsored objections to this (together with Denisovan) most revolutionary discovery in anthropology so far, a lot of unfounded/illfounded almost hysterical alternative "explanations" were proposed. However, rest assured, there is no doubt whatsoever that floresiensis is for real. Klevius said it ten years ago and you will agree even more 2024!
Ust'-Ishim (a 45,000 bp so called modern human from northern west-Siberia) also appears to harbor Papuan-like ancestry not shared with Kostenki14.
Klevius answer/comment: There are at least two types of 'Papuan-like' ancestry. The one that wasn't island dwarfed and the one effected by it.
All contemporary non-Africans, except Australo-Melanesians, are closer to either Mal’ta (MA1) or MHGs than to K14 [e.g., Z = -5.3, for D (Mbuti, Han; Loschbour, K14); SOM S9; table S10; fig. S19].”
Klevius answer/comment: Last glacial maximum (LGM) and its refuge areas.
Among Eurasians, Papuans and Melanesians furthest from K14.
Klevius answer/comment: If K14 (Kostenki) had got the new genetic brain setup that would of course made them different than those who never left the islands in SE Asia.
The question remains whether Kostenki 14 has Denisovan ancestry.
Klevius answer/comment: It probably had and a paper will likely appear soon.
Kostenki 14 is partly of Basal Eurasian origin.
Klevius answer/comment: Naturally.
Oceanians are closer to Kostenki than to Stuttgart, and closer to Kostenki than to Mal'ta or Loschour. This is very weird to me.
Klevius answer/comment: Malta is more than 10,000 years younger than K14 and hence reflects more mixing. However, Oceanians, although much younger than K14, are furthest away and hence retain some of the original features from SE Asia that they got primarily via taking women of this original trait, i.e. best reflected in mtDNA analysis from that area.
K14 behaves like papuans or South Asians and unlike all other Eurasians, by scoring non-noise level of African at low K.
Klevius answer/comment: Yes.
The populations in Siberia closer to Ajvide and Motala + Evens instead of Gokhem or Iceman + Evens are exclusively Uralic populations, plus Kets. This is interesting because Nganassan and Ket typically get their own component in ADMIXTURE at high K, and this is found amongst Uralic pops usually. It is a secondary component amongst Siberian Altaics like Yakut, who get a more East Asian, less Siberian component on top of the Nganassan one.
Uralic expanded from somewhere east, and the easternmost pops of Uralic are more East Asian than the westernmost ones, so this seems to imply that at the time of the Uralic expansion a scandinavian HG-like pop was still living in much of the Taiga, which got overprinted by the oncoming Uralic wave.
Klevius answer/comment: Yes. Moreover, due to bias/prejudice the importance of Uralic has for long been downplayed - even by Finnish anthropologists/genetists/linguists.
Also, the fact that West Eurasian introgression into Siberians from the Ob-Yenisei requires 1) a West Eurasian Population that has no basal, thus no modern Europeans, 2) something that is not too ANE-rich like Mal'ta, 3) a conbination of WHG and ANE like Motala so far east in Siberia, means that the situation in Siberia must have been very complex.
Klevius answer/comment: Indeed, what else could you expect from the birthplace of modern humans.
I've seen similar admixture edges from the Denisova/Neanderthal branch to the Oceanians in my own runs, but didn't think these were anything but the usual signals of Denisova-related ancestry in Oceania.
Klevius answer/comment: Probably because you stubbornly kept keeping the theoretical genetic map upside down.
I've even seen an edge from near the Mbuti to Papuans. But I haven't been able to split this signal into Denisova and something else further up the tree.
Klevius answer/comment: It's diffuse because it's behind the island dwarfism scenario.
Ancestors of) Papuans & Mamanwa(Phil.) travelled through Central Asia meeting Denisovans and continued to China coast & east rim of SE Asia to Papua. Unlike pygmies(Andaman, Queensland, Flores), they did not follow the Indian Ocean coast eastward from Africa.
Klevius answer/comment: No, it was Denisovan that travelled through Central Asia and then genetically drowned in the big brained humans of the north.
For some time now I have thought that Papuans must have admixture with a pre-sapiens SE Asian population. Perhaps that explains the reasonably high Denisova element in them as well. And with Y-DNA K2(xK2a) apparently originating in SE Asia and K2b2 spreading around the world from there we have an explanation...
Klevius answer/comment: Good thinking, albeit quite late considering floresiensis was discovered back in 2004.
"...Certain cranial features, including very narrow braincase, low and narrow face, marked prognathism (anterior protrusion of the midface), and very wide nose, are typical of tropical populations. The trait combination links the cranium with those of Papuans and Melanesians".
Klevius answer/comment: Yes.
Why do San and Chinese have eye folds and Papuans don't.
Klevius answer/comment: I'm terribly sorry for you having missed Klevius writings on the web for a decade and in book form for more than two decades. I started thinking about it in late 1980s when I met some South Africans who had been with San.
Why do Ainu look like a lighter skinned cross between San and Papuans?
Klevius answer/comment: See above. Also consider the title of the last chapter in Klevius 1992 book: Khoe, San, and Bantu (which should rather have been San, Khoe, and Bantu to be chronologically correct but should then have missed the important linguistic 'Khoe-San' concept).
The autosome of K14 is closer to WHGs, implying that the pop he came from descended from another that gave rise to ANE, which in turn came from another pop that gave rise to ENA (Oceanian (ASI-Dai)). This is a sequential pattern of splits from the East, and the autosome is not subject to the same kind of information loss as haploid genetics is.
Klevius answer/comment: Seems not to conflict with Klevius theory.
"...Certain cranial features, including very narrow braincase, low and narrow face, marked prognathism (anterior protrusion of the midface), and very wide nose, are typical of tropical populations. The trait combination links the cranium with those of Papuans and Melanesians.
Certain other Upper Paleolithic crania from Europe, too, display “tropical†features. Bodily proportions of Early Upper Paleolithic people reveal southern characteristics as well. This also concerns the arm proportions of the Markina Gora individual, whose forearm was relatively long compared to the shoulder.
http://www.kunstkamera.ru/en/temporary_exhibitions/virtual/gerasimov/09
It seems that early pops in temperate Eurasia all had a rather undifferentiated 'Papuanoid' morphology, pointing to tropical origins in recent periods.
the same basic people("meta-population)" lived from Europe-central Asia for a span of at least 30,000 years, who "exchanged genes in a very complex network
Klevius answer/comment: A back-migration through archaic sapien territory inevitably means exchanging genes in a complex network - especially considering that the back migrants harbored the new brain setup among some/many of them.
With regard to exactly where K14 is in ANE-WHG:
"An interpretation of the above results would be that K14 is an early member of a lineage leading to western Eurasian MHGs, after their split from the proposed ancestral northern Eurasian lineage including MA1. However, D-statistics of the form D(Mbuti Pygmy, Modern; Ancient, K14), which test whether K14 and an ancient individual form a clade with respect to a modern population, reject this simple tree-like relationship. We find that all contemporary non-Africans, except Australo-Melanesians, are closer to either Mal’ta (MA1) or MHGs than to K14 [e.g., Z = -5.3, for D (Mbuti, Han; Loschbour, K14); SOM S9; table S10; fig. S19]. This would suggest a basal position of K14 with respect to MHGs and ancient north Eurasians, which is also shown in admixture graphs using TreeMix (SOM S12; fig. S24 and S25). In addition, a sizeable component of K14’s ancestry observed in the model-based clustering analyses is predominant in contemporary Middle Eastern/Caucasus (ME/C) populations and Neolithic ancient genomes (NEOL) (Gok2, Iceman, Stuttgart), but absent in MA1 or MHGs (Fig. 1B and fig. S20). This component has been associated with a suggested “basal Eurasian” lineage contributing to NEOL, to explain an observed increase in allele sharing between MHGs / MA1 and East Asians compared to NEOL (21). Since K14 shows the same pattern as NEOL, a parsimonious explanation would be that K14 also derives some ancestry from a related “basal Eurasian” lineage. Consistent with this hypothesis, we find that East Asians are equally distant to NEOL and K14 using D-statistics as described above."
Klevius answer/comment:
1) Kostenki (K14) shows the most similarity with WHG and lesser with modern day Europeans.
- The greatest affinity by f3 is with loschour, and secondarily with La Brana and Scandinavian HGs.
- The greatest component in ADMIXTURE for K14 is shared with N. and E. Europeans.
- f3 stats show the most affinity with Europeans.
- For pairs of pop incl. European and East Asian, K14 is closer to European.
- f3 results are robust to contamination.
2) All pops other than Oceanians are closer to WHG samples or MA-1 than to K14.
3) ADMIXTURE shows K14 share some protion of a component in Neols and Near Easterns.
4) From 2) + 3), K14 had basal Eurasian.
- East Asian equally distant from K14 and Stuttgart using D-stats (!)
5) Siberians from the Ob and Yenisei closer to European than to K14, but closer to Scandinavian WHG than to European, and closer to Scandinavian WHG than to Mal'ta. The best mix not European + Even Siberians, or Mal'ta + Even Siberians, but Motala + Even Siberians, implying early gene flow prior to Mesolithic.
6) K14 has higher Neanderthal segment length than modern pops and later aDNA. Authors draw same conclusion as those for Ust-Ishim, aka 54kya, OOA.
7) Restricting 'analysis to areas without evidence for neaderthal-introgressed haplotypes in contemporary humans results in 0% estimated ancestry for most individuals except K14, where 0.9+-0.4% Neanderthal ancestry is still detected.' Authors attribute this to selection out or drifting out of neand till modern times, or further neand input into K14. No evidence for introgression from other unknown archaics.
8) 'Our results show no close genetic relationship between K14 Australo-Melanesians, and support earlier studies that Australo-Melanesians derive part of their ancestry from an early population divergence that pre-dates the separation of Europeans and East Asians' (!)
Klevius answer/comment: Of course, except for the questionable concept 'modern day Europeans'. What would be 'modern day Asians of Africans?
Peter Klevius theory on human evolution as presented 2004 on the web
Later findings in genetic research has forced Klevius, not to change the basic idea (a small but well packed tropical brain that expanded and culturally developed in the cold north and then globally back migrated) but to add more focus on SE Asia than Africa. The main text is pre-floresiensis, i.e. brief notes abt floresiensis were added later (2004-6 and in bold) without changing the body of the theory. Remember that the theory is anchored in Klevius 1992 discussion about Jinnuishan, Aborigines, Khoe-San and how the brain works (ISBN9173288411). Some details can be questioned now but it will here be strongly argued that there hasn't been available any other theory that gets even remotely as close to the latest findings. Whereas most anthropologists today admit they are confused and surprised Klevius is much less so as you can easily see from the below and his 1992 books.
http://klevius.info/Humandiaspora.html?1085339285543
Out of Africa: How a wrinkled/complex African "Pygmy"*1) brain became "human"/"Mongoloid"* in cold Asia
Human rights, anti-racism/sexism, and a global worldview. without separatism*2) by Peter Klevius KLEVUX
Klevius' hypothesis on human evolution (Discuss/refute it via Klevius' Anthropology Blog):
Hypothesis assembled in public in May 2004 (Original idea from 1992 Demands for Resources).
Link to a pile of open questions related to the hypothesis below. Please add, answer or correct!
Link to "A Nomenclature System for the Tree of Human Y-Chromosomal Binary Haplogroups"
Link to a good background "...that a large component of the present Khoisan gene pool is eastern African in origin and that Asia was the source of a back migration (>20 kyr) to sub-Saharan Africa..."
Anthropologists often suffer from a serious, modern blindness/fear to the meaning of biokinship. This will heavily affect their capability of interpreting foreign, not to say extinct cultural behaviour and social settings (see e.g. P. Klevius 1992 on Popper's World III and "primitivism" and 1996 on the Social State and Klevius' Definition of Religion). This individualism (see World Values Survey) bias might be of particular concern regarding our understanding of sexual selection (also see From Klevius without love), shamanism etc. How does a woman "select" the "right" sperm in a tribal, non-monogamic/-close relatives (endogamy/exogamy - see Kinship Atom) sexual context when she has only ONE chance per 1-5 yrs? Actually most parental investment and sexual selection theories seem to suffer from an individualistic perspective. Sexual selection in the form of "rapetivism" (Y/X balance) is yet another source of confusion. The stupid Hamilton's rule is as wrong as every such analysis!
Did the "Aurignacian"*) revolution (starting some 40.000? ya) from Lake Baycal**) to Europe create the multi-racial single-species we now consider the "real, global humans"?
text written mainly 2003-2004 with some small additions abt floresiensis 2004-2006. Not touched upon since 2006.*) An advanced tool technology that is solely associated with modern humans and which originated outside Africa. M. Otte in The Aurignacian in Asia: "...discoveries in central Asia permit the distribution of Aurignacian to be extended far beyond Europe, which brings into question the hypothesis of a direct African origin for modern humans."
**) According to S. Wells modern humans spread to Europe (M173) and NEast-Asia (M242) from Central-Asia/Mid-Siberia (M45).
Also note: "Native Siberian populations represent one of the least studied groups in the world".
"...current data indicate a very early development of a “transitional” or early Upper Paleolithic industry in Central Asia."
It seems (P. Klevius 1992) that there has been a marked acceleration in brain development after 400 kya in Central and East Asia. This is consistent with recent findings suggesting more frequent and pronounced climate variations during the period. The last major stage of modern human evolution started (?) less than 50-80 kya (also see Out of Africa again and again) perhaps with small "pygmies" (perhaps descending from ape to human hybridization - see Homo floresiensis below as well as the close chimp/Neanderthal connection) with brains that were more wrinkled/complex (e.g. ASPM) than those of the Neanderthals/Erectus/-Pekingensis/Java man and early moderns (also consider map of race distribution below). They spread/developed - like the earlier Levallois-Mousterian tool tradition - (partly due to climate variation) through two different channels (the Levant and the African Horn respectively) a) towards the vast and challenging but also rewarding Central Asia/Siberia (mongoloid traits more than 50 kya? and M173 exported to Europe from Siberia more than 30 kya - see e.g. S. Wells 2002) and b) along the South Asian coust-line (Negritos, M130? less than 50-60 kya, but see South Asia, the Andamanese, and the Genetic Evidence for an “Early” Human Dispersal out of Africa). Late archeological and linguistic traces of the northern route may also be connected to the first Scandinavians, in southern Mesolithic Finland and the west/northern Fosna-Hensbacka culture (extending to the far north-western Norway). Phylogeographic data from Britain indicate shared ancestry across the north of Europe from Norway to Estonia, possibly reflecting common ancestors dating back to the last glacial epoch. The southern route may also have contributed to the Central-Asian lineage. Because of different climate conditions the southern pygmies/Negritos (see Genetic affinities of the Andaman islanders) did not change much (before they met the Mongoloids from the North - this view will also solve puzzling y-chromosome similarities) whereas the northern route (M89/9, less than 50 kya) created more fair-skinned, taller and heavier "mongoloids" (so called "minor local contribution"). Shovel-shaped incisors in both Erectus and Sapiens indicate gene flow and/or shared gene stock/hybridization/drift, or simply an unknown local adaptation. A northern climate with plenty of proteins etc. enforced cultural changes (e.g. longevity and due multi-generational cultural wisdom collected and transfered by the elderly) and changed physical appearance (mongoloid, i.e. adaptation for coldness/darkness/brightness) without the latter necessarily having any direct impact on the former. The distance to the southern Europe (northern Europe was under the glacial maximum) was too short to avoid direct mixing thus making it impossible to create a distinct new "race" ("...the Europeoid movement is clearly fixed at Lake Baikal"). Genes were "pumped" back and forth through mostly the same geographical "veins" by frequent climate changes, hence prohibiting speciation but encouraging local "raciation". When the "mongoloids" returned - through the same routes and/or through M175 or the East-Asian routes (Negritos have shovel-shaped incisors and other mongoloid traits) - with main clashing points perhaps somewhere in southern China (also compare Taiwan & Gm ab3st) and Southwest Asia. Eurasia "would be the logical homeland of the proto-U6 that came back to Africa and spread in its northwest area around 30,000 ya" . The "source area could lie equally in
northeast Africa, the Arabian peninsula, or even across towards Iran and northwest India". They (i.e. the genes - compare e.g. DYS 391-9 allele - only common among Siberians/Mongolians/Amerinds - in the background of M130T) met (widely in time and space) and "re-shaped" most of the Negritos and remaining older moderns and laid the basis for today's racial pattern (compare Hammer et al 1998). In this scenario the mongoloid traits in Khoisan/Sandawe originated in Asia (also see Khoi, San and Bantu in Klevius 1992 for a socio-cultural interpretation) but ended up in southern Africa (a kind of genetic escapism in "demographic refuges", that actually made them visible) after having met with the non-Pygmy and taller black population and contributed to the appearance of North-Africans/Caucasoid people ("Paradoxically, genetic comparisons of Khoisan and Ethiopian populations show both polarity and affinity". It is noteworthy that only Negritos and Khoisan seem to share steatopygia (compare Venus figurines from Baykal to Europe), and that Khoisan and mongoloids have shovel-shaped incisors (i.e. I suggest that we might find both "original" and "mongolized" click-speakers in Africa less than 37 kya and more than 20 kya). When the already "mongolized" mix of farmers we use to name Caucasoids eventually met with the northern mongoloids they created the blond, Scandinavian type. East Finland, where the lightest people on Earth seems to have evolved, was a straight, dark dead end for farming arriving from southeast (also see Are Finnish related languages Europe's oldest?). Is this related to the haplogroup X mystery? What about blondness in young Australoids? The pattern is also reflected in different genetic studies (see e.g. a possible description of relative genetic distance among Europeans and racial comments). This hypothesis is strongly supported by Diego positive blood distribution and is especially appealing because most (outside East Asia) seem to avoid it (i.e. I don't believe in my own skills as much as in the striking self-explanatory inevitability of such a picture). An interesting mutation called RPS4YC711T may play a part in future revelations, as may the scattered distribution of YAP+ in Tibet, Japan and southern China, (but less in between or in Siberia). It is also noteworthy that speciation or lack of it interacts in a "sex-biased" way, i.e. may follow/disrupt either through the Y or the X chromosome. But although we have just started a genetic revolution, physical appearance may still be of great interest for the puzzle, not for racist interpretations but precisely because our understanding of how genetic interaction appears physically is so limited and our capability to visually recognize faces etc. is so extraordinary (also compare From Klevius without Love - on heterosexual attraction, kinship and friendship). For more on the hypothesis see Klevius Anthropology Blog - NEWS, DISCUSSION & PECULIARITIES!
"They (the North African Fulanis) despise the Black populations to their South, describing them as ‘hyenas, apes, and asses’"
"The million-dollar question of the origin and dispersal of the classical Negroids". Can we even handle the answer and/or are the "pure" Negroids long since already gone? The factual state of Africa's diverse gene pool seems plausible within a pattern of a long distance back and forth migration. One might also compare the above with the earlier rapid transition from African Ergaster to the more advanced Asian Erectus. Furthermore there seems to be an unnecessary bias connected to the geographical "Africa". Why, for example, emphasize (that's what the Afro-American black man Mr White says) the Herto moderns 154-160 kya, abt 1.400 cc as "Africans" (compare Jinniushan, northern China 250-280 kya, abt 1.400 cc)? A look at the map (African/Asian border) makes such interpretations, at the best, ridiculous, and at the worst almost like the racist 19th Century "European" "findings". Like "This Eurocentric view of equating AMH with UP tools...." Although the pics (and links) below are choosen with care to describe and enlighten the hypothesis above, please don't hesitate to comment or suggest improvements. As a proponent for basic (negative) UN Human Rights in a future Global Village I don't believe in races other than as historical descriptions of evolutionary events. I'm particularly offended by religious white/black, "caucasoid/negroid" racism (a "mongolized bastard caucasoid whitey" myself).
Mongoloids and Australoids are the races most distant from each other because whereas Africa had a strong back migration of mongoloids (Bantu expansion is a much later phenomenon) 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 + Bantu which is a mix of archaic Africans and Eurasians spiced with some Khoe-San traits).
Some updates after Denisovan and new older dates for iceage art
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
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.
Sunday, November 02, 2014
A non-racist brain size map from 1984 is in astonishing agreement with newest research - and Klevius theory
Modern intelligence needed the hot islands in the south and the cold and protein rich north to thrive and develop culturally
Klevius simplified human evolution formula for dummies: If you have one liter of brain capacity (e.g. erectus) and get stuck on a jungle island for thousands of years then the brain will shrink to half a liter. However, if selection favors those who could keep their IQ unchanged the result would have been something like Homo floresiensis who had a brain size of a chimp but a cultural level on pair with Homo erectus. Now, when sea level fell again the island became mainland and opened up for re-mixing with erectus. And sooner or later the new brain setup came to reach the really big brained dummies in the north.Do note that we don't know whether Ust-Ishim man was archaic or already affected by the new brain setup from SE Asia. Do also note that in Klevius theory there is no necessary correspondence between brain size and intelligence - other than the very core of Klevius theory, namely that some children to those individuals who had the genetic setup for a better brain of course became even more intelligent if they had a bigger vessel to expand it in.
However, hybridization and due back migration out of Siberia also meant that only some individuals in every kinship group got the new brain setup. But this was quite enough in the beginning in the north where the easy access to proteins and fat favored longevity and multi-generational knowledge transfer/conservation.
It's quite hard to find Eurocentrism in the 1984 map below. But much easier to find genetic etc correspondence with what we know today - yet some racist people can't really swallow.
Friday, May 02, 2014
Klevius Out-of-Siberia theory again gets strong support - while news media misinform and confuse
Yes, there was no big difference in intelligence between Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis - until something big happened in cold Siberia/Altai
Here's a blatantly false and misleading "news" story
And here's a more accurate one
Klevius explanation: The keyword is 'early' in 'early modern humans'. This 'early' was missing from Guardian's reporting which then gives the impression that Neanderthals were equally clever as we. They were not, and this is extremely clear from what we know so far about their material culture. However, from the perspective of Klevius' theory (see below) this is really the crucial point that Klevius has challenged since he published his book Demand for Resources - on the right to be poor in 1992 (admittedly not a big hit) where he questioned why big brained Homos (e.g. the 1,400cc female Jinnuishan skull) living in China more than 260,000 bp didn't manage to leave more and better cultural traits than they actually did.
The simple reason why the Eurasian art track goes first to the west has to do with the more favorable climatological and faunal situation on this part of the Eurasian steppe. Sadly, it then encountered what is now called Europe and therefore became "racist" in the minds of biased "scientists". But luckily, at least it didn't start in Europe if we have to believe Klevius.
The Neanderthal inhabitants of El Sidrón (Spain) 49,000 years ago possessed a modern FOXP2 gene compared to the one in chimpanzee. It is then likely that Floresiensis/Denisovan got the same gene before their jungle dwarfing somewhere between SE Asian mainland and Australia. FOXP2 differs from that of the chimpanzee in two positions (911 and 977 of exon 7). Morphologically it should be noted that the shape of the human trapezoid bone indicates a derived feature from some 7-800,000 years ago and is a synapomorphy of H. sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis. The Homo floresiensis type specimen (LB1) includes a trapezoid, scaphoid, and capitate which display none of the derived features of H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis but are morphologically identical to all African apes and Australopithecus afarensis. A possible explanation to both these facts is that a Pan/Homo hybrid in Africa got the modern FOXP2 more than 800,000 bp, and subsequently transferred it to the predecessor of Neanderthal and Denisovan. However, this hypothetical hybrid lacked the morphological features above, so in SE Asia it was more like an ape than a Homo except for that it possessed the crucial FOXP2 gene.
According to Peter Klevius theory - which is the only one yet that fits all physical known facts - a small but better structured Floresiensis like brain developed in a tropical climate as a result of so called jungle dwarfing and later on spread (while also growing in size) to the cold north where it eventually encountered and mixed with the biggest (normal) Homo skulls ever found. The Denisova cave and its surroundings in Siberia/Altai has not only proven to be the only known region inhabited by all known varieties of human lineages, but also the very place where the oldest truly sophisticated artifact made by truly modern humans has been found, the >40,000 bp so called Denisova bracelet.
From the media: The Neanderthals are believed to have lived between roughly 350,000 and 40,000 years ago, their populations spreading from Portugal in the west to the Altai mountains in central Asia in the east. They vanished from the fossil record when modern humans arrived in Europe.
The reasons for the demise of the Neanderthals have long been debated in the scientific community, but many explanations assume that modern humans had a cognitive edge that manifested itself in more cooperative hunting, better weaponry and innovation, a broader diet, or other major advantages.
Roebroeks and his colleague, Dr Paola Villa at the University of Colorado Museum in Boulder, trawled through the archaeological records to look for evidence of modern human superiority that underpinned nearly a dozen theories about the Neanderthals' demise and found that none of them stood up.
"We found no data in support of the supposed technological, social and cognitive inferiority of Neanderthals compared to their modern human contemporaries," said Wil Roebroeks, an archaeologist at the Leiden University in the Netherlands.
"The explanations make good stories, but the only problem is that there is no archaeology to back them up,"
"The evidence for cognitive inferiority is simply not there," said Villa. "What we are saying is that the conventional view of Neanderthals is not true."
Klevius comment: No not at all, it's the conventional view on the modern human that isn't true! And the reason for that is the fanatic push for the unfounded "out-of-Africa" myth which has been kept alive by squeezing in non-human fossils under the laughable title "anatomically modern human". And the only reason seems to be racist African-centrism aided by a "let's call the most backward continent the origin of humanity". In fact, it was Arabic islam that made Africa backward for 1400 years with its racist/sexist "infidel" slave raiding/trading!
A brief summary of Klevius' theory with some remarks on racial etc bias
For some twenty years Klevius has proposed the view that modern humans got a small but more efficient brain in the south (jungle?) but that they peaked culturally in the cold and challenging but also rewarding north where they got a bigger brain by mixing with pre-existing Homos. Neanderthals contributed with big skulls and erectus with mongoloid traits. We do know that Floresiensis possessed a brain that was much smaller than erectus' brain yet managed to produce similar culture. What is today called Indonesia happened to have the perfect breeding environment for the brain experiment that produced both Floresiensis and Denisovan: Jungles which, due to sea level changes, altered between islands and mainland. When mainland Floresiensis/Denisovans mixed with erectus (Red Deer Cave people might have been such a hybrid) they improved the brain qualities of erectus while getting erectus' mongoloid traits for cold adaptation (assuming erectus got it in their initial expansion to the north as well) and later on brought it south). Somewhere in the Altai region they also encountered northern Neanderthals which further enlarged their heads and produced a very smart modern human (compare the Denisova bracelet) which then started a successful back migration in all directions which strengthened the mongoloid traits in the already mongoloid east while mongoloid traits were diluted when mixing with non-mongoloids in the west and southwest (Neanderthal and archaic sapiens hybrids) and later on by the neolithic expansion. This explains the general racial pattern and also why we have "skinny" mongoloids both in the south and north although the original northern mongoloid were presumably "fatty" for the cold (compare Venus figurines, steatopygia etc).
Klevius personal note: It's extremely important to distinguish between PC cultural "race" terms and evolutionary traits. I call myself as belonging to the "bastard race", i.e. not a Saami, Scandinavian, Finn or Swede, but with a lot of mongoloid genetic traits in common with them or their predecessors. With a dad born in Gothenburg and a Finnish mother born in Helsinki who delivered me in Stockholm, and with a bilingual upbringing in Finland to a culturally ethnic Atheist Finland-Swede working in both Finland and Sweden, I rather emphasize my ethnicity under the 1948 Universal Human Rights declaration. Which fact effectively keeps my logic out of sexist and racist ranting about my ethnicity/race that would otherwise make it more difficult to produce scientific theories in this field.
Funny, but somehow I never even reflected over other "races" as being "inferior" or "different" as human beings or anything before these self-declared cultural "races" themselves started implying that I also possessed a "race" and that that "white" "race" was a "racist" "race". Had no idea really and in the 1990s while living in Finland and after visiting some "black" and "colored" Swedes in Stockholm our child thought Swedes were black in general.
Higher ape/hominid evolution in continental Africa vs. island SE Asia
Already before the discovery of Homo floresiensis Klevius thought a good "pygmy" brain slowly traveled to the protein rich but cold north while increasing in size and capabilities. After the discovery (2004) of the apelike and extremely small brained but smart Homo floresiensis in southern Indonesia nothing except M130 connected anything to Africa anymore. And when the Denisovan was discovered in Siberia at the same place as the hitherto most sophisticated early artifact ever found (Denisova bracelet - see above) the picture seemed quite clear. There are only two possible places for equatorial evolution of hominids, either Africa or SE Asia. And because SE Asian archipelago offers the by far best combination of jungle isolation and changing barriers it seems that floresiensis (and similar populations) should have been equally expected as the dwarfed elephants they hunted.
So when a floresiensis like population managed to escape to mainland Asia they started mixing with local Homo erectus all the way up until they met with the northern Neanderthals and there created what became the truly modern humans - overwhelmingly proven through stunning skills revealed in unprecedented art and behavior.
M130
Sima de los Huesos, Floresiensis and Denisovan
may have all originated in EurasiaGenetic evidence reveals that the Sima de los Huesos hominin (400,000 bp) shared a common ancestor with Denisovan some 7-800,000 bp rather than with Neanderthal although its skeletal remains carry Neanderthal-derived features.
Do note the lack of chin in these as well as in the 26,000 bp Venus of Brassempouy. Also note that we don't know the shape of Floresiensis' nose.
The Sima sample exhibits a number of features that are shared with Neanderthals but not African fossil humans, and are rare in recent humans.
Later Neanderthals do not have the same diversity as earlier Neanderthals in western Europe, while central Asian Neanderthals have more diversity than those from Europe. This may indicate that Neanderthals were more numerous in western or central Asia.
The Denisovan nuclear DNA is also closer to Neanderthals than the Denisovan mtDNA.
Sima de los Huesos is closely related to the lineage leading to mitochondrial genomes of Denisovans.
The Denisovan-heidelbergensis clade split about 800kya-900 kya (around the time of the oldest stone tools on the island of Flores where floresiensis was found) is older than the modern human-Neanderthal split. Non-African Homo has an Erectus connection, a Denisovan-heidelbergensis connection, as well as a Neanderthal connection.
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 Brassempuoy 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.
Was the sculptural portrait of Venus of Brassempuoy 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 Brassempuoy, 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..
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..
