Neanderthals reconstructed

These are the most recent reconstructions of Neanderthals, given light skin, mostly light hair and modern human features as a norm. Thankfully, they are no longer given very dark skin (which I always thought was racist) and huge brows. As time has worn on, they’ve been shown to essentially been very similar to modern humans in all kinds of ways.

These images are a far cry from the earlier ape like reconstructions, like  these…

Note the difference. The first reconstruction (holding a spear) is actually of the same skull as the full face in the middle of the top image.

I have to say that I don’t think the modern reconstructions differ any more from the modern European facial norm than a modern Aborigine does, if you saw them in the street.

10 responses to “Neanderthals reconstructed

  1. “they are no longer given very dark skin (which I always thought was racist)”. Yes. They were considered inferior and dark skinned people were thought inferior, hence the connection.

    I’ve always been suspicious of the dark hair and skin portrayal. Because Neanderthals evolved and lived for so long in regions of winter snow I’d suspect that at least the northern specimens would exhibit the change many other species exhibit in the same environment, white in the winter and brown in the summer.

  2. The mutation they have on the MC1R was supposed to give them red hair…

  3. Neanderthal bones dated to ~100,000 yrs ago & those dated around 30,000 yrs ago show a considerable amount of evolution/change, so either they began to evolve when they encountered sapien or they bred with them to some degree. I suspect casual association with another sub-species would have no effect on physical evolution.
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/01/070116-neanderthals.html

  4. I’m not sure this is the right forum for this question but what is your opinion of this Australoid skull associated article:

    http://canovanograms.tripod.com/pintubi1/

    It seems to me that an unbiased person would consider this Australoid to have archaic features and that this would imply a connection with the Homo erectus that lived, in ancient times, in the same area. In other words, multi-regionalism. I’m trying to figure out how out of Africa people explain this. Why would a recently out of Africa population develop features that bear such a close resemblance to those they displaced? Seems too much to be a coincidence.

  5. Sorry. I meant to say “of this Australoid skull AND this associated article.

  6. Neandertal live in Lithuania Siauliai

  7. I was in the Natural History Museum in London yesterday and was looking at some of the models of skulls they have on display.
    They had one which was the type specimen for the Neanderthal and another classified as Early Modern which was found in what was at the time Palestine. They were so similar in everything including size I couldn’t really tell them apart.
    The only significant differences I could easily identify was that the Modern had a higher forehead and a slight chin.
    Apart from that their faces would have appeared very similar in life.
    It is only my opinion but I believe the second skull was a hybrid.

    • They were so similar in everything including size I couldn’t really tell them apart.

      Half the time, anthropologists can’t either. the specimens from Jebel Irhoud (Africa) were mistaken for Neanderthals for a long time.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s