Skip

Great, yet unsettling, CGI reconstruction of a Neaderthal child's head.
August 2, 2001 5:50 PM   Subscribe


 
Wow, looks like an extra from The Dark Crystal...

That picture's kinda incongruous given the nature of the text- it doesn't do a lot to suggest that Neanderthals "were not close relatives of modern humans". Looks pretty human to me, in an underfed Dickensian street urchin kind of way..
posted by hincandenza at 7:10 PM on August 2, 2001



Here's some more information from the University of Zurich. I too find it vaguely disturbing.
posted by kaefer at 7:18 PM on August 2, 2001


hincandenza, check out the profile shot at the bottom, she/he looks a lot more elfish/monkey-ish than a homo sapien.
posted by skallas at 7:32 PM on August 2, 2001


Um, Neanderthals are Homo sapiens. They just aren't Homo sapiens sapiens.

Although this new evidence may change that... we'll see.
posted by Ptrin at 7:55 PM on August 2, 2001


He looks like Chaka...
posted by Optamystic at 8:17 PM on August 2, 2001


This shows that the English have been around a lot longer than people had previously thought.
posted by lagado at 8:24 PM on August 2, 2001


So the main difference between homo sapiens and homo sapiens sapiens is a little rhinoplasty and a chin implant.
posted by lagado at 8:33 PM on August 2, 2001


Discovery Channel's computer modeled Jesus looks like a pre-historic man too.
posted by tamim at 9:45 PM on August 2, 2001


Neanderthal my arse. I only killed that kid four, maybe five years ago.
posted by obiwanwasabi at 12:18 AM on August 3, 2001


"They mostly come out at night. Mostly."
posted by dong_resin at 1:01 AM on August 3, 2001


This story brought to mind the (excellent) Greg Bear book "Darwin's Radio". If you are into speculative sci-fi, go read it now.
posted by costas at 1:15 AM on August 3, 2001


No, Jesus looks like the Giant from that old Walt Disney cartoon with Mickey and the beanstalk.
posted by fidelity at 3:27 AM on August 3, 2001


And read William Golding's The Inheritors.

Just thought I'd drop that in here.
posted by Grangousier at 3:30 AM on August 3, 2001


Lagado, I have coffee all over my keyboard now. Thanks.
posted by mimi at 7:29 AM on August 3, 2001



Reconstructions of Neanderthal skulls add to growing evidence that the creatures were not close relatives of modern humans.

Aren't reporters supposed to go out and find the other side of the story? Or is there some kind of Beeb/Times jealousy going on here?
posted by anewc2 at 9:40 AM on August 3, 2001


Is anyone else disturbed by the article anewc2 linked to? I mean, wasn't a lot of that "evil cannibalistic Neanderthals" garbage dismissed when Neanderthals were discovered to have had flutes, burial sites with flowers, and close-knit family structures? Also, "low forehead" is quite a bit different from "sloping forehead"... one implies a smaller cranium, while another just implies a different skull shape (the latter being the correct one).
posted by Ptrin at 10:06 AM on August 3, 2001


Uh, Ptrin. Non-Neanderthal humans have been known to be cannibals; it's not a slur.

A lot remains to be determined about them. I always like the (probably half-baked) theory that niche languages like Basque could be remnants of the Neanderthals, who lived in Europe before the Indo-Europeans arrived. Mainly I've always been fascinated by the idea of living side-by-side with another intelligent subspecies, and what effect that would have on us. (If the Neanderthals truly were more fearsome and less linguistic, that could go a long way to explaining certain elements of racism.)

Ah, for a time machine...
posted by dhartung at 12:17 PM on August 3, 2001



Is anyone else disturbed by the article anewc2 linked to?

Yes. And no.
posted by anewc2 at 12:42 PM on August 3, 2001


« Older printable batteries.   |   Microsoft is hoarding child... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post