Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2024/05/02/what-neanderthals-looked-like-75000-years-ago.html
…
5 Likes
More alive?
13 Likes
Neanderthal, a type of ancient human that disappeared around 40,000 years ago.
Uh, no.
4 Likes
I guess they meant hominid…
6 Likes
Ancient hominid certainly. And clearly able to interbreed with Homo sap. This is where definitions of “what constitutes a species” gets hairy. Traditionally and conventionally, Homo neanderthalensis is considered a separate species from Homo sap, Most of us carry the clear evidence of the ability to intermix genetics with them. So, are they really a different species? Not in that field, I have no answer, but my impression is “it’s complicated.”
19 Likes
Thanks…
10 Likes
Some more than others. Unlike many of his other films that involved heavy facial prosthetics, I’m not convinced that Ron Perlman was even wearing makeup at all in Quest for Fire.
15 Likes
It’s been fascinating to watch the evolution of how archaeologists think about Neanderthals over my life. When I was a kid, they were still seen as brutish and ape-like, but then as the archeological evidence that Neanderthals weren’t a separate species but interbred with “modern humans,” suddenly they started being seen as a lot smarter and similar to modern populations. Even when the hotly-contested evidence of “hybrid” offspring in Europe - which of course has turned out to be completely correct - was not widely accepted, it felt like even the specter of the idea that these were ancestors of modern Europeans was enough to force a rethink. (Although it might have been the increasing weight of the archaeological evidence showing complex tool use and art had a part, too…)
And the role of racism in depictions, too - during that transition in the way they were thought of, they went from very swarthy to pale and blond in depictions. (Which turns out not to be the case, as there was a lot of diversity even in European groups; pale skin seems to be an adaptation to farming and changes in meat and fish consumption more than cloudy climes). Apparently some white supremacist groups have even taken Neanderthal DNA as their marker of “white purity” - ignoring the fact that Neanderthal ancestry isn’t remotely limited to Europe…
12 Likes
Assuming “human” means Homo sapiens and not Homo. But people used to talk about things like “Neanderthal Man” and “Java Man” all the time, so that seems like an odd cut off now that we know some of the others mixed with us.
4 Likes
True enough. “Human” is not a scientific term, and I always default to the sciences. If “human” refers to genus Homo, then yes, I agree. Generally, when folks use the term, they are speaking of Homo sap. That is less accurate, IMHO.
3 Likes
When most folks use the term sloth, they are speaking about little creatures that live in trees. That doesn’t mean those were the only sorts, just that we usually talk about living animals. 
2 Likes
7 Likes
I’ve also heard the term “modern humans” used to differentiate us from H. neanderthalensis and other now-extinct subspecies but of course that is a pretty misleading term too since we evolved contemporaneously.
8 Likes
Same issue exactly, even if “sloth” at least includes 2 extant species. There are always (or I think always?) gonna be more species in a genus that have “joined the bleeding choir invisibule” than are currently scurrying around. The whole logic behind the rise of cladistics was to avoid the uncertainties of what a “species” actually means. But we venture far off topic at this point! (As you know, I will nerd out over pretty much anything!)
5 Likes
16 Likes
Visions of Austin Powers!
4 Likes
I love that there are camels in the background of that image.
Pregnant!
6 Likes
You know, there are lots of little groups I could have mentioned as remnants of much larger ones. I see I picked the right one. 
5 Likes
9 Likes
