Science

Partly Sunny with Showers 10° London Hi 14°C / Lo 9°C

Revealed: the face of the first European

35,000-year-old skull fragments found in Romania are made flesh by scientists

By Steve Connor, Science Editor

The Radio Times carries a full interview with the presenter of 'The Incredible Human Journey'

The Radio Times carries a full interview with the presenter of 'The Incredible Human Journey'

The face of the first anatomically-modern human to live in Europe has been revealed. It belonged to a man – or woman – who inhabited the ancient forests of the Carpathian Mountains in what is now Romania about 35,000 years ago.

The artist's reconstruction – a face that could be male or female – is based on the partial skull and jawbone found in a cave where bears were known to hibernate. The facial features indicate the close affinity of these early Europeans to their immediate African ancestors, although it was still not possible to determine the person's sex.

Richard Neave, the forensic artist who reconstructed the facial features in this clay model, based his assessment on a careful measurement of the bone fragments and his long experience of how the soft tissues of the face are built around the bones of the skull.

The reconstruction was made for the forthcoming BBC 2 series The Incredible Human Journey which documents human origins and evolution, from our birthplace in Africa to the long migratory routes that led us to populate the most distant parts of the globe. It is impossible from the bones to determine the skin colour of the individual, although scientists speculate it was probably darker than modern-day Europeans, reflecting a more recent African origin.

Mr Neave's clay head of the "first modern European" now sits on the desk of Alice Roberts, the Bristol University anthropologist who will introduce the BBC series, which is scheduled for screening next Sunday evening on BBC 2. "It's really quite bizarre. I'm a scientist and objective, but I look at that face and think 'Gosh, I'm actually looking at the face of somebody from 40,000 years ago', and there's something weirdly moving about that," Dr Roberts told the Radio Times.

"Richard creates skulls of much more recent humans and he's used to looking at differences between populations. He said the skull doesn't actually look European, or Asian, or African. It looks like a mixture of all of them. And you think, well, that's probably what you'd expect of someone who was among the earliest populations to come to Europe."

Potholers discovered the lower jawbone of the first modern European in 2002 in Pestera cu Oase, the "cave with bones", located in the south-western Carpathians. The remaining fragments of skull were unearthed in 2003.

Scientists have dated the bones using radiocarbon analysis to between 34,000 and 36,000 years ago when Europe was occupied by both Neanderthal man, who had lived in the region for tens of thousands of years, and anatomically-modern humans – Homo sapiens – who had recently arrived on a migratory route from Africa via the Middle East.

Although the skull shares many modern feature of human anatomy, it also displays more archaic traits, such as very large molar teeth, which led some scientists to speculate the skull may belong to a hybrid between Homo sapiens and Neanderthals – an idea discounted by other experts.

Erik Trinkaus, professor of anthropology at Washington University in Missouri, and one of the first specialists to study the bones in detail, said the jaw was the oldest, directly-dated modern human fossil. "Taken together, the material is the first that securely documents what modern humans looked like when they spread into Europe," he said.

Neanderthal man

*Lived in Europe for 300,000 years, surviving a number of ice ages before dying out 25,000 years ago. No one is sure why. Original fossil remains were found in 1856 in the Neander valley, near Dusseldorf, Germany. Socially advanced but left no signs of art, decoration or jewellery. But archaeologists have discovered a flute and have tested their toolmaking skills, suggesting a higher level of sophistication than first thought.

Homo sapiens

*Arrived in Europe some 35,000 years ago, competing with Neanderthal man for 10,000 years. DNA studies suggest the two species did not interbreed. First remains of Homo sapiens – modern humans – found in 1868 in a cave in the Dordogne, France, and known as Cro-Magnon man. Left cave paintings at Chauvet, Lascaux and Altamira, suggesting a sudden development of art.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>
Africa.
[info]ron_broxted wrote:
Sunday, 3 May 2009 at 11:43 pm (UTC)
Is that a typo in the headline?235,000 years?
Re: Africa.
[info]xenthoid wrote:
Wednesday, 6 May 2009 at 03:59 am (UTC)
yes..its 35,000
Please!
[info]kodak321 wrote:
Monday, 4 May 2009 at 01:27 am (UTC)
What a load of BBC PC nonsense. So you've come up with a male/female hybrid that's as African in colouring, as any sub-Saharan African I've seen. Today, north Africans are lighter in colour than their southern neighbours. How could the Europeans be black given this gradual process of movement. Surely North Africans would have moved as the first people?
Re: Please!
[info]commentr wrote:
Monday, 4 May 2009 at 09:21 am (UTC)
I thought the original research was by Bristol (a proper) University not the bbc. As for the modern day north Africans, they are Arab descendants from the west Asian expansion, not original Africans like the Egyptians, Berbers, Ethiopians, etc. The idea that the first Europeans were African is obvious and irrelevant; the European environment caused genetic evolvement anyway and Europeans soon developed their specific characteristics.
Re: Please! - [info]ahmetk - Monday, 4 May 2009 at 06:08 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Please! - [info]xenthoid - Tuesday, 5 May 2009 at 12:40 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Please! - [info]nijlgans - Tuesday, 5 May 2009 at 03:02 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Please! it's all quite sensible. - [info]san_diego_usa - Tuesday, 5 May 2009 at 05:08 am (UTC) Expand
No Thank You -- You Have a Hidden Agenda! - [info]errol888flynn - Tuesday, 5 May 2009 at 07:14 am (UTC) Expand
Re: No Thank You -- You Have a Hidden Agenda! - [info]xenthoid - Tuesday, 5 May 2009 at 03:25 pm (UTC) Expand
whoa! - [info]paulbear1 - Tuesday, 5 May 2009 at 07:26 pm (UTC) Expand
early
[info]capeta wrote:
Monday, 4 May 2009 at 03:22 am (UTC)
It doesn't look like Da Vince' s characters
Re: early
[info]xenthoid wrote:
Tuesday, 5 May 2009 at 12:55 am (UTC)
lol it is pretty ugly
Revealed: the face of the first European
[info]levonet33 wrote:
Monday, 4 May 2009 at 04:31 am (UTC)
This is total crap.Pseudoscience.
Early. What?
[info]kodak321 wrote:
Monday, 4 May 2009 at 04:44 am (UTC)
Err...but they were middle Eastern....well south east med. Not sure. Reuters... I'm informed...100%...let's just clarify this... yes they were Norwegian, dark Norwegians.
(no subject) - [info]errol888flynn - Monday, 4 May 2009 at 05:43 am (UTC)
Re: More Communist Insanity Designed to Undermine European Identity
[info]tommytcg wrote:
Monday, 4 May 2009 at 06:19 am (UTC)
I agree on purpose, but not on our origins. Go and explore the reality on www.theyfly.com. Learn that the white and the Oriental races are not of this planet. Our first visit here was 22 million years ago, with then already with beyond-lightspeed travel tech. The orientals canme later from the other side of Galaxy. Our history is over as billion years. Theories such as originating in Africa from Lucy, Iraq cradle of civilzation etc. is mainstream misinformation.
Dodgy
[info]bobdp wrote:
Monday, 4 May 2009 at 07:04 am (UTC)
I suspect an agenda here!
The current theory suggests that homo sapiens arrived in europe via the middle east. They were in the middle east from 60000 years ago and as the article confirms were in europe from 35000 years ago. That 25000 years in transit is more than enough for them to have lost their African appearance.
Don't you think?
Re: Dodgy
[info]andre_t wrote:
Monday, 4 May 2009 at 08:57 am (UTC)
so they were of Middle Eastern appearance, most likely olive skin and dark hair and dark eyes
Re: Dodgy - [info]xenthoid - Tuesday, 5 May 2009 at 12:53 am (UTC) Expand
Junk Science
[info]healthy_skeptic wrote:
Monday, 4 May 2009 at 07:28 am (UTC)
BBC, the Globalist Agenda's mouthpiece. Every other word coming out of them is 'global' or 'Africa'. Hence it's no suprise they would come up with this whopper. Expect more insults and junk science until the BNP comes into power.
Re: Junk Science
[info]abs1978 wrote:
Monday, 4 May 2009 at 08:52 am (UTC)
Yes, lets get the BNP into power; it'll be wonderful watching them round up all the disabled people and ethnic minorities as they don't fit the BNP's life criteria, that would be brilliant...what century are you living in you racist pig?
Re: Junk Science - [info]downtoearthguy - Monday, 4 May 2009 at 10:49 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Junk Science - [info]adampooler - Monday, 4 May 2009 at 02:41 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Junk Science - [info]collin_brown - Monday, 4 May 2009 at 05:30 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Junk Science - [info]adampooler - Wednesday, 6 May 2009 at 07:06 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Junk Science - [info]collin_brown - Wednesday, 6 May 2009 at 08:06 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Junk Science - [info]adampooler - Wednesday, 6 May 2009 at 09:42 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Junk Science - [info]colinru - Monday, 4 May 2009 at 07:14 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Junk Science - [info]colinru - Monday, 4 May 2009 at 07:08 pm (UTC) Expand
BNP Hysteria? - [info]errol888flynn - Tuesday, 5 May 2009 at 05:46 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Junk Science - [info]terry99 - Wednesday, 10 June 2009 at 04:37 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Junk Science - [info]triffid2009 - Monday, 4 May 2009 at 01:29 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Junk Science - [info]colinru - Monday, 4 May 2009 at 07:16 pm (UTC) Expand
Alien in disguise
[info]boeticia wrote:
Monday, 4 May 2009 at 07:35 am (UTC)

Why . . . . . . it's ET!!!!
[info]wer_wind_blows wrote:
Monday, 4 May 2009 at 08:12 am (UTC)
Wow, the absolute ignorance and prejudice of some people here is astounding.

I do agree that it's ridiculous for them to claim to know the skin colour and facial features from a jaw bone and skull fragment, although I wonder how it would make some people feel knowing that many of our supposed "evolutionary ancestor" fossils and remains are just as minute.

But anyways, to the point...genetically, there is 0.2% difference between any two people.
Ethnically, there is even less...0.012% difference.

So those who speak of the "white race" and what not, you're gravely mistaken. "Race" is a word invented by people. Human "races" do not exist.

This has been scientifically proven.
[info]colinru wrote:
Monday, 4 May 2009 at 07:19 pm (UTC)
The BBC seem to think that the colour is important. People are posting to show that they are not taken in by this obvious bias on the part of the British Bashing Corporation.
No Races Scientifically Proven? Balderdash! - [info]errol888flynn - Tuesday, 5 May 2009 at 07:49 am (UTC) Expand
Junk Science
[info]willow0195 wrote:
Monday, 4 May 2009 at 09:32 am (UTC)
Why ?

When a black person mates with a black a black child is the result

When a black person mates with a White a black child is the result eg Currect US President.

How in heavens name could whites come from black people ?

Genetic mutation maybe - well just say a white person came from this , as soon as that white person mated the offspring would be black.

Albino - black albino people keep there black features and such over time would still be black.

Where do i think white people came from Asian Why ? the main diffence betteen a white person and an asian is their eye shape thus a genetic mutation could of created the white race from them.


Now for the above artical -

how in heavens name can you say an individual was black skin colour based on a partial skull and jawbone , isn't the artist just using guess work for that ? Why yes it is just assumed the individual was black even though they admit "the skull doesn't actually look European, or Asian, or African".

How come do they say he had a Black nose when "the skull doesn't actually look European, or Asian, or African".is it guess works as well ?

To me the whole skull looks is guess work because they are recreating a whole face from "partial skull and jawbone" in which "the skull doesn't actually look European, or Asian, or African". Make you wonder how he got his black face doesn't it.

Re: Junk Science
[info]manplant wrote:
Monday, 4 May 2009 at 10:38 am (UTC)
Black mating with white and offspring mating with white and the end result is white (more or less). At least 20-30% of UK white population has black ancestry and you would never know it. The 'black' gene is actually quite weak when compared with the 'indian' gene.

Genetically, the avarage white Brit is closer to a Nigerian than to someone from eg an isolated Spanish Village. Isolation plays a key part in genetic development. The UK population is classic 'mongrel', ie made up of many immigrant populations over thousands of years.

As for Oriental, the difference is not just eye shape but also size and body shape. Orientals are adapted to cold climates therefore having shorter limbs and different shaped hips. In men, penis size is also smaller than those of white Europeans and Africans (Africans just shade it).

The Celts were originally from central Asia, some migrating East and some West. The ones that went East died off unlike those that reached Europe including UK and Ireland. They were on average taller than Orientals and different in appearance.

nb Obama is half 'black'. Bits of 'white' features can be seen in him. If his whife was 'white', their children would be more or less 'white'.
Re: Junk Science - [info]willow0195 - Monday, 4 May 2009 at 12:23 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Junk Science - [info]errol888flynn - Monday, 4 May 2009 at 05:37 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Junk Science - [info]colinru - Monday, 4 May 2009 at 07:35 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Junk Science - [info]errol888flynn - Tuesday, 5 May 2009 at 05:40 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Junk Science - [info]colinru - Tuesday, 5 May 2009 at 10:09 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Junk Science - [info]andre_t - Monday, 4 May 2009 at 03:30 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Junk Science - [info]andre_t - Monday, 4 May 2009 at 03:33 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Junk Science - [info]dabd - Friday, 8 May 2009 at 10:39 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Junk Science - [info]khazraj - Monday, 11 May 2009 at 04:04 pm (UTC) Expand
Looks like Larry Wilmore
[info]tskoge wrote:
Monday, 4 May 2009 at 09:44 am (UTC)
He (?) looks like Larry Wilmore of The Daily Show fame.
[info]haiku_690 wrote:
Monday, 4 May 2009 at 12:04 pm (UTC)
People are just full of their own opinions. What does it matter if we evolved form Africans? HOw does that undermine us?
[info]colinru wrote:
Monday, 4 May 2009 at 08:12 pm (UTC)
It does not matter - but the BBC seems to think that it does.
(no subject) - [info]xenthoid - Tuesday, 5 May 2009 at 03:38 pm (UTC) Expand
Go home
[info]docbombay wrote:
Monday, 4 May 2009 at 12:44 pm (UTC)
Why are Independent articles often followed by comments from racist idiots nowadays?

specifically in this article; kodak321 errol888flynn healthy_skeptic downtoearthguy

I think your comments are proof that evolution is a very slow process. Some of us are further behind the curve than others.

Why are you using the Independent as a vehicle for promoting your puerile world view? You're not going to persuade many people here with the fearful, irrational arguments you keep putting forward.

In the same way as you'd like to exclude certain people from Britain on the basis of their skin colour, birth country etc I would like to exclude YOU from the comments section of the Independent. Unfortunately we live in a democracy (although I'm sure you're working hard on changing that).

I come to this site for intelligent, balanced journalism not racist propaganda from dimwits. Please go back to the comments section of the Daily Mail where you belong?
Re: Go home
[info]arkybarky wrote:
Monday, 4 May 2009 at 02:44 pm (UTC)
Ah yes, Errol Flynn, our very own little national socialist likes to cut and paste from white supremacist websites. Thankfully his comments have now, rather like he that inspired them (one J Streicher), been deleted.

Dear Mr Flynn, (if you are still there after taking time out to chew the carpet) I think if the good readers of this journal wanted to read such material they are more than capable of finding it for themselves.

You'll be telling us next that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are for real! I dare say that in your tortured worldview they are . . . how sad.

One last point; please don't forget that the colour of your skin is caused by melanin deficiency. This is down to a faulty gene seemingly carried by all Aryans.
Re: Go home [Huh??] - [info]errol888flynn - Monday, 4 May 2009 at 06:39 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Go home [Huh??] - [info]dabd - Friday, 8 May 2009 at 12:43 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Go home [Huh??] - [info]errol888flynn - Friday, 8 May 2009 at 06:53 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Go home - [info]colinru - Monday, 4 May 2009 at 08:17 pm (UTC) Expand
Deleted Comment - [info]errol888flynn - Tuesday, 5 May 2009 at 05:54 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Go home - [info]dabd - Friday, 8 May 2009 at 12:28 am (UTC) Expand
You're right, and wrong - [info]sheeranami - Saturday, 13 June 2009 at 10:30 am (UTC) Expand
Ancestry
[info]un_baiat wrote:
Monday, 4 May 2009 at 01:48 pm (UTC)
Why so much panic on the subject? It seems to me that some people would go to incredible lengths to deny their ancestry, just to feel more comfortable with their mentality that is only the product of a few decades, if more than that.
What are the facts? Fragments of Homo Sapiens bones have been collected from a site in the Carpathian Mountains area. These fragments have been dated to be about 35,000 years old. They are estimated to be the remains of the first inhabitants of this area that we call today Europe. They were not African, European, Asian or even Romanian. They were members of a species tryng to survive, looking for new resources and territories where they could find shelter and raise their offspring. Maybe you need to think a bit about that, before making judgements on their ethnic or racial nature.
What does the Frankfurt school, Obama's election or BBC have to do with these undeniable facts? Did they plant the bones in the Carpathian Mountains so we could all have left-wing feelings and attitudes today?
You know, six thousand years ago the most developed area in the world was not Europe, but what we call today Iraq, where the Sumerian civilisation lived. We owe them the fact that they invented writing, bricklaying and even the stairs. We are all "Sumerian" in this respect, so I don't see what the problem is with admitting that all humans came from Africa. We are so different from our ancestors that it really doesn't matter much. We have changed a lot from living in different environments for thousands of years and we are now more "cultural" than ever. You should ask yourself why you or others feel threatened by any implication that the first human to set foot on geographic Europe might be of African origin.
Re: Ancestry
[info]jochebed2 wrote:
Monday, 4 May 2009 at 03:51 pm (UTC)
un-bayat, the "Frankfurt School" reference was rather apt, only not in the sense that the writer imagined: In the 1940s, while in exile from the Nazis, Horkheimer, Adorno et al. wrote this juicy empirical study, "The Authoritarian Personality", which is worth reading even now. It has a lot of info on paranoid white racists.

Why would anybody mind that "the first European" is depicted as brown-skinned? Nobody knows anyway, and why would it make a blind bit of difference?
Re: Ancestry - [info]colinru - Monday, 4 May 2009 at 08:22 pm (UTC) Expand
[info]the_kegs wrote:
Monday, 4 May 2009 at 02:21 pm (UTC)
Yeah, yeah, definitely, this was the owner of an hotel that my wife and I stayed at in Brasov last year. No doubt about it. My wife happened to comment that it was hard to tell whether it was a bloke or a bird, I agreed. To be honest, I said, 'does it really matter?'! Anyway, yeah, definitely the one, right down to the Bobby Charlton wig. Oh, what was the name of that place now!
Re: Go home
[info]kodak321 wrote:
Monday, 4 May 2009 at 03:14 pm (UTC)
Poor Docbombay. Asian by any chance? We're all behind the curve? Saturate us with your superior intelligence. An intelligence that believes we live in an open democracy. When I voted, I did not vote for an open door policy to accept any economic migrant that makes it to these shores. I did not vote for a shambolic asylum returns system that is the laughing stock of the developed world. I most certainly didn't vote for a dilution, denigration, and contemptuous assault on British standards, values and traditions. Many Brits are now second class citizens (our towns, cities infested by immigrants), in their own domain. Democracy?....not for me and millions of other ethnic British. How dare you tell me how to think. Bloody traitor...but are you British? Do you live in the UK? Tell us.
Re: Go home
[info]rational_man wrote:
Monday, 4 May 2009 at 06:01 pm (UTC)
I don't think kodak understands what a democracy is. They count the votes and then do what the majority wants. They don't just do what you say.

And where are all these millions of other ethnic British who all want all the immigrants out? Democracy is such that if enough people wanted it, it would happen. The fact that it didn't, and the BNP are not in power, illustrates better than anything that, even though you seem to think you do, you don't share the views of most people in this country.

I agree with DocBombay. Go hang out some place else. And yes I'm British. And yes I live in the UK.
Re: Go home - [info]colinru - Monday, 4 May 2009 at 08:29 pm (UTC) Expand
looks like obama
[info]skiporbit wrote:
Monday, 4 May 2009 at 04:38 pm (UTC)
looks like obama, these clay models come from the mind of the sculpter, most likley a democrat.
Re: looks like obama
[info]dabd wrote:
Friday, 8 May 2009 at 08:53 pm (UTC)
Really,

I don't see the resemblance to President Barrack H. Obama. Furthermore what does a Democrat look like? By the way he's President Obama not Obama--your not his friend and he is after all the President Of the United States.

The clay model is not from the mind of the sculpter but based on the jawbone and skull that was found. It kills me how ignorant you and most people on this page are. We all originate from one common ancestor from Southern Africa--you need to get over your sense of entitlement and superiority complex.

In fact we are all Black...
First European my A***
[info]collin_brown wrote:
Monday, 4 May 2009 at 05:06 pm (UTC)
What rubbish is the Independent going to suggest next? Brit's are 99.9% African? What an appalling attempt at brainwashing readers.
Re: First European my A***
[info]rational_man wrote:
Monday, 4 May 2009 at 06:09 pm (UTC)
I can't see what's so hard to believe?

Evolution is such that the organisms change over long periods and adapt to their environment. If you can't believe that a black man became white and his face changed a bit, how are you going to cope with the revalation that if you go back far enough, humans evolved from fish?

And just out of interest, why does the Independent want to brainwash us into thinking that we have black ancestors? What could they possible achieve by this?
Re: Go home
[info]kodak321 wrote:
Monday, 4 May 2009 at 08:22 pm (UTC)
Irrational man. On the contrary, we vote political parties in on their expressed commitments, and an open door immigration policy (that's exactly what has occurred since 1997), was never articulated by the present Government. Lies, damn lies, and manipulation of statistics have been the order of the day for the past ten years. The majority never wanted uncontrolled immigration. The issue has been discussed at length in all the broadsheet papers and immigration is (and has been for sometime), a major concern of the British Public. It seems you're one of the few who's had his head firmly wedged up his arse for the last 5 years. Long may that continue.

Now, back to the representation of early Europeans. It's just plain stupid (comical some might say), to depict early Europeans as African black. A sallow Middle Eastern appearance, yes, but not Sub-Saharan black. I'll reiterate. This is absurd BBC political correctness, which cannot stand-up to even the most basic scrutiny. Can't you understand this, or are you as brain dead as your posting indicates.

PS I couldn't give a toss whether you're British, or a Extraterrestrial fruitcake. You're a dunce either way.
This headline and story are so silly.
[info]efarah wrote:
Monday, 4 May 2009 at 08:30 pm (UTC)
Firstly, it is a fact that no one can no that this is "the first" modern man to inhabit Europe. It is an intellectual absurdity to make a statement like that. Of the hundreds of millions of humans living in the world in ancient times, only 4000 or so have been discovered. That is a outlandishly small subset.

Secondly, the writer and "scientist" say they don't know whether the bones were male or female. There is a lot more that can't tell than that! From the few bones they have (found a year apart--so they may not be the same person) they don't have any way of knowing the shape of the soft tissue like the lips, the skin color, the nose shape. This is reminiscent of the silly hoaxes perpetrated on the public and the scientific community over the years since Darwin's Origin of Species. Unscientific assertions--speculations--perpetuated as reasoned fact by sober, neutral professionals which could never be supported by the evidence.

The beauty of course is this, these "facts" such as pictures of "cave men" which are "reconstructed" from a single tooth (later found to be a swine's tooth) are believed by a gullible public. By the time the fraud or incompetence is discovered or admitted, the lie became part of the historical memory.

The next time you see a news agency report this kind of negligence as fact--write them and call them, and hold them responsible.
Re: This headline and story are so silly.
[info]xenthoid wrote:
Tuesday, 5 May 2009 at 04:00 pm (UTC)
you are correct that the title is misleading. we could never know if this is the first modern european or not but due to its age and its location it would be amongst one of the first. i suspect the title is worded they way it is to grab peoples attention in a short phrase..and based on this comment list i think it worked.

indeed, they can't know for sure what the soft tissue shape was however after working with thousands of skulls and facial reconstructions they have managed to find some baseline ideas about a human face. however due to the subjective nature of the reconstruction ( hence the 3 king tut reconstructions) there is some guess work in the creation of the face. I too dislike the idea that they had to "pain stakenly rebuild the skull from fragments". this leaves too much open for interpetation. there are plenty of complete human skulls from the late pleistocene and early holocene that they could have used instead.

agreed. often there are hoaxs from "scientists" usually using a tooth or bone. and i do take things like this with a grain of salt.

personally will read the original study and the news print to get a better idea of whats being said. and if need be and if possible i try to get ahold of the scientist or researcher and ask some questions.
Re: This headline and story are so silly. - [info]dabd - Friday, 8 May 2009 at 10:19 pm (UTC) Expand
European Ancestry II
[info]un_baiat wrote:
Monday, 4 May 2009 at 09:42 pm (UTC)
I'm not familiar with any political line that BBC might support and I'm not from the UK. So if my comments reflect a lack of knowledge on the context, consider these circumstances.
I'd like to point to all commenters who criticised journalists and scientists for the apparently black depiction of the first human that inhabited geographic Europe that the article makes a clear mention on the subject:
"It is impossible from the bones to determine the skin colour of the individual, although scientists speculate it was probably darker than modern-day Europeans, reflecting a more recent African origin. "
So apparently, what we see is a composite image of how a European populations' ancestor might have looked like according to this hypothesis. The colour of the skin in this case is not a fact, but the location where the bones have been found and the age of these remains are hard and undeniable facts. Everything else is informed speculation. This is how I see things from outside UK, without having the same political concerns as other commenters on the subject. It's important to focus on the scientific facts and ignore the rest of the "package" that was only produced for the media, with an audience in mind.
Re: European Ancestry II
[info]errol888flynn wrote:
Tuesday, 5 May 2009 at 08:10 am (UTC)
You make several good and valid points un_baiat, but you do miss an essential one. The political issues related to the bogus speculations contained enshrined in the picture heading this article ARE THE DEBATE!

We Europeans don't get hung up over genuine discoveries that show our distant ancestors came from the continent we now call Africa, or from Asia Minor ... what we get hung up about is the Marxist-Racist, anti-White drivel that is published almost daily by our own Media (both newspapers and the BBC, etc) which promote a pack of speculative lies in order to satisfy some nefarious agenda. Genocide is a capital offence and one of the first steps for those who wish to commit genocide on a group is to demean and misrepresent their true heritage.

Over 35-million white babies have been aborted since 1972 and white birth rates are well below replacement level, thanks almost entirely to legislation inspired by the Frankfurt School theories of Cultural Marxism; meanwhile, the Indian, Arab, and African populations have all exploded over the same time period.
Re: European Ancestry II - [info]un_baiat - Tuesday, 5 May 2009 at 12:43 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: European Ancestry II - [info]collin_brown - Tuesday, 5 May 2009 at 09:27 pm (UTC) Expand
Future European
[info]mackname wrote:
Monday, 4 May 2009 at 10:52 pm (UTC)

Nonetheless, it could be a scientific prediction that what European may look like in couple of centuries from now.
Wow
[info]rttech82 wrote:
Tuesday, 5 May 2009 at 12:17 am (UTC)
OMGosh that is totally amazing!

RT
www.anonymity.ru.tc
Looks just like any mugshot
[info]testid1 wrote:
Tuesday, 5 May 2009 at 02:50 am (UTC)
in any major city
Re: Looks just like any mugshot
[info]collin_brown wrote:
Tuesday, 5 May 2009 at 09:28 pm (UTC)
How very apt.
Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>

Most popular