Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

brooklynite

(96,882 posts)
Thu May 2, 2024, 02:42 PM May 2024

Face of a 75,000-year-old Neanderthal woman revealed by scientists

Source: NBC News

LONDON — She looks pretty good for 75,000 years old.

Particularly given that her skull was smashed into 200 pieces, possibly by a rockfall, before it was meticulously pieced together by scientists over the last six years.

This is Shanidar Z, a Neanderthal woman whose face was recreated by archaeologists at England’s University of Cambridge. By reimagining her facial features, rather than just the skull itself, the university said a report published on its website Thursday, that experts have been given new insight into what our ancient cousins actually looked like.

Turns out they may have been more similar than we thought — both in terms of their facial features and their thoughts about death.




Read more: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/neanderthal-woman-face-reconstructed-iraq-scientists-cave-rcna150344
54 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Face of a 75,000-year-old Neanderthal woman revealed by scientists (Original Post) brooklynite May 2024 OP
She looks great for her age! nt intrepidity May 2024 #1
Granny! Arne May 2024 #2
There's a congressional district in Georgia where Mr.Bill May 2024 #3
OMG I see the similarity! Maraya1969 May 2024 #4
You have a good eye! LOL LeftInTX May 2024 #5
Ouch. GB_RN May 2024 #7
+1 orangecrush May 2024 #9
Same here. Definitely. calimary May 2024 #15
I think she is better looing than the one in Georgia Bev54 May 2024 #11
Probably more intelligent, too. n/t Mr.Bill May 2024 #12
+1 dalton99a May 2024 #18
That is a sick and disgusting comment. She was a person. Show a little respect. Martin68 May 2024 #25
That brow, chin and smile, multigraincracker May 2024 #6
No one has ever lived at any time other than the most modern of times sanatanadharma May 2024 #8
Not to confuse the packaging with the package. WheelWalker May 2024 #32
She lived StarryNite May 2024 #10
Is that MGT without the blonde hair? Chainfire May 2024 #13
Enough with the juvenile jokes. This was a real person. Stop demeaning yourself and the scientists and artists who Martin68 May 2024 #26
Exactly! usaf-vet May 2024 #28
I'm sure this particular lady Aussie105 May 2024 #36
I care. I'm not going to second guess highly rained forensic anthropologists. Martin68 May 2024 #43
Where did it say her age? Polybius May 2024 #45
What is your point? Facial reconstruction its based on bone structure, not age. Jus because she looks old to your eyes, Martin68 May 2024 #47
My point is that i was responding to the other poster Polybius May 2024 #49
Yes, that's very ok. I'm sorry if I came across as unpleasant. The comments about age and flippant quips about the woman Martin68 May 2024 #51
It's all good! Polybius May 2024 #53
No, that image is an artist conception of what this protohuman may have looked like. It is a fantasy. Chainfire May 2024 #42
Her sex was determined by DNA from her tooth enamel. Bone structure is fairly straight forward. LeftInTX May 2024 #46
now use ai to de-age catsudon May 2024 #14
There are better pictures Warpy May 2024 #16
23 and thee. Marcuse May 2024 #17
No eyebrows or did she pluck them? twodogsbarking May 2024 #19
MTG ananda May 2024 #20
Seriously now, that (and I may be in trouble for saying it) is a Native American face. mpcamb May 2024 #21
No, it is not a Native American face. It is a Neanderthal face. The differences are quite obvious. Martin68 May 2024 #24
neat. AllaN01Bear May 2024 #22
Will posters please stop the agist, misogynistic, and foolish comments on how good she looks for her age? The article Martin68 May 2024 #23
This message was self-deleted by its author Elessar Zappa May 2024 #44
Wow. Science has brought us wonderful insight into our pass. Now 75,000-year-old Neanderthal woman. That doesn't ..... usaf-vet May 2024 #27
Get thee behind me SATAN! brooklynite May 2024 #30
MJT is older than we thought relayerbob May 2024 #29
I'm watching the documentary on Netflix. LeftInTX May 2024 #31
I don't understand what that pie chart is trying to tell us muriel_volestrangler May 2024 #33
Wrong interpretation. Aussie105 May 2024 #35
Your sentence "Current Baltic genotype has some Neanderthal commonality" may be true muriel_volestrangler May 2024 #37
It's cool! Right! LeftInTX May 2024 #39
It's from GedMatch. It's DNA markers and what modern populations the DNA matches with. LeftInTX May 2024 #38
It's meaningless for the Neanderthal muriel_volestrangler May 2024 #41
I was going to say there is a lot of guess work involved. Aussie105 May 2024 #34
What's weird is: Neanderthals carried mostly African genes, but modern Africans do not carry the Neanderthal genes. LeftInTX May 2024 #40
I think there's been a tendency to assume snot May 2024 #48
Homo sapiens prevailed? Aussie105 May 2024 #50
My understanding is that only ca. 2% snot May 2024 #54
An apex predator John Shaft May 2024 #52

GB_RN

(3,531 posts)
7. Ouch.
Thu May 2, 2024, 03:30 PM
May 2024

You’re insulting someone, who, from all available evidence, was part of a society of nurturing and caring people.

On the other hand, there’s not one iota of evidence that MAGAt Traitor Greene has one picogram of nurturing or caring ability within her…body. 🤢🤮

I’d trade any number of Neanderthals for MAGAt Greene. Any day. Without hesitation. 😁🤘🖖

calimary

(89,289 posts)
15. Same here. Definitely.
Thu May 2, 2024, 04:52 PM
May 2024

Last edited Fri May 3, 2024, 07:53 PM - Edit history (2)

As you put it: "I’d trade any number of Neanderthals for MAGAt Greene. Any day. Without hesitation." Excellent, GB_RN!!!

sanatanadharma

(4,082 posts)
8. No one has ever lived at any time other than the most modern of times
Thu May 2, 2024, 03:39 PM
May 2024

"Turns out they may have been more similar than we thought — both in terms of their facial features and their thoughts about death."

The body wrapper changes (obviously) in life and time. It is a mistake to assume the conscious-beingness wrapped in a past body was somehow less 'conscious-being' than we are today.
Everyone, then and now, lives in the most modern of times.

I like the Mona Lisa smile and accepting eyes. Indeed, accepting "I"s are the best.

StarryNite

(12,016 posts)
10. She lived
Thu May 2, 2024, 03:56 PM
May 2024

What was she like? Was she kind and nurturing? Who did she love? Who loved her? Did she have children? What was her life like?

Martin68

(27,311 posts)
26. Enough with the juvenile jokes. This was a real person. Stop demeaning yourself and the scientists and artists who
Thu May 2, 2024, 08:39 PM
May 2024

accomplished this amazing feat.

Aussie105

(7,720 posts)
36. I'm sure this particular lady
Fri May 3, 2024, 04:11 AM
May 2024

is beyond caring.

I don't think people lived that long in those days, so I'm guessing the age she is portrayed at is a bit too old?

Martin68

(27,311 posts)
47. What is your point? Facial reconstruction its based on bone structure, not age. Jus because she looks old to your eyes,
Fri May 3, 2024, 12:30 PM
May 2024

it doesn't follow that her appearance is due to age.

Polybius

(21,625 posts)
49. My point is that i was responding to the other poster
Fri May 3, 2024, 10:41 PM
May 2024

One poster said they usually don't live as long as she did, and I was curious because the article didn't mention anything (that I saw) about her age. Is that ok?

Martin68

(27,311 posts)
51. Yes, that's very ok. I'm sorry if I came across as unpleasant. The comments about age and flippant quips about the woman
Sat May 4, 2024, 08:04 AM
May 2024

made me uncomfortable. You were just asking an innocent question. My bad!

 

Chainfire

(17,757 posts)
42. No, that image is an artist conception of what this protohuman may have looked like. It is a fantasy.
Fri May 3, 2024, 07:58 AM
May 2024

I have serious doubts if the scientist can even acertain that it was a woman's skull. There are for more serious issues in life to get upset over.

LeftInTX

(34,031 posts)
46. Her sex was determined by DNA from her tooth enamel. Bone structure is fairly straight forward.
Fri May 3, 2024, 11:32 AM
May 2024

However, skin pigment, eye color (current belief are that blue eyes are only 10,000 yo), hair color, hair texture, eye shape, body hair are all speculation. For some reason eye color is one of the most accurate DNA markers in humans. Hair texture, hair color, skin pigment aren't as accurate. There are also disease markers that are studied in ancient humans.

Warpy

(114,503 posts)
16. There are better pictures
Thu May 2, 2024, 05:28 PM
May 2024


https://www.sciencealert.com/meet-shanidar-z-75000-year-old-neanderthal-womans-face-reconstructed

I knew someone who looked remarkably like her. I doubt modern humans saw all that many differences between themselves and the Neanderthal. 75,000 years ago was when Mt. Toba blew up, the climate turned on a dime, and both populations needed to pool resources and knowhow in order to survive.

Martin68

(27,311 posts)
23. Will posters please stop the agist, misogynistic, and foolish comments on how good she looks for her age? The article
Thu May 2, 2024, 08:34 PM
May 2024

already made the joke so you're just repeating yourselves. In actual fact, the recreation of this woman's face is a remarkable scientific and artistic feat, and it is awesome to see how this woman from so long ago might really have looked. Stop making adolescent jokes about the appearance of this person who actually existed. Show a little respect.

Response to Martin68 (Reply #23)

usaf-vet

(7,768 posts)
27. Wow. Science has brought us wonderful insight into our pass. Now 75,000-year-old Neanderthal woman. That doesn't .....
Thu May 2, 2024, 09:17 PM
May 2024

....... match up to the belief of some that our past is only 6000 years old.

They don't understand science, so they choose to believe that humans and dinosaurs walk the earth at the same time.

Sadly, not only do some current adults believe the 6000-year-old tale, but they also choose to keep their children ignorant of the facts that science has to offer.

No wonder we have a large, ignorant country of voters.

My generation of parents wanted their children to be prepared to move into adulthood with the knowledge and skills that allow them to succeed and thrive in an ever-changing world.

It seems that some parents and community elders want their children to inherit their grandparents' and great-grandparents' knowledge and skill sets. They think that if it was good enough for the prior generations, it should be good enough for our current generation.

LeftInTX

(34,031 posts)
31. I'm watching the documentary on Netflix.
Thu May 2, 2024, 09:53 PM
May 2024
&ab_channel=Netflix

Neanderthal ethnic admixture is about 75% Sub-saharan Africa and most of the rest is North East Africa.


29 K yo Neanderthal from Russia. (They all pretty much have DNA like this)

muriel_volestrangler

(105,821 posts)
33. I don't understand what that pie chart is trying to tell us
Fri May 3, 2024, 03:52 AM
May 2024

1.37% of what set of genes are "Baltic"? What is a "Baltic gene"? What does the 100% represent? You talk about a 29,000 year old Neanderthal found in Russia. Are you saying that all the ancestors of Neanderthals can be divided up into the listed regions, and they know that 5% of their DNA came from Neanderthals in Oceania, but none from the continent of Asia between Oceania and Russia? That sounds very unlikely to me. It's a long way to travel in one generation, for a Neanderthal.

Aussie105

(7,720 posts)
35. Wrong interpretation.
Fri May 3, 2024, 04:04 AM
May 2024

Current Baltic genotype has some Neanderthal commonality.

Thousands of years of people moving about the globe will do that.
Many generations in fact.



muriel_volestrangler

(105,821 posts)
37. Your sentence "Current Baltic genotype has some Neanderthal commonality" may be true
Fri May 3, 2024, 04:16 AM
May 2024

but what has that got to do with the pie chart? What do 1.37% Baltic, 5.25% Oceanian, 22.34% North-East African and 70.05% Sub-Saharan African add up to 100% of? What has it got to do with a 29,000 yea old Neanderthal?

LeftInTX

(34,031 posts)
38. It's from GedMatch. It's DNA markers and what modern populations the DNA matches with.
Fri May 3, 2024, 04:37 AM
May 2024

Sort of a past time I have
It's not where the person has been. It's how it matches with living populations.

Here is a partial list of ancient DNA samples


You select a kit and put it in a calculator
There are about five Neanderthals on the list:


Here are my DNA results


Here is my Oracle
It's pretty accurate: I'm 1/2 Armenian and 1/2 Mostly British Isles..

Keep in mind admixtures are estimates. It's saying based on the Eurogene calculator, I am most like this populations. The 2.1 is accuracy. The smaller the number, the closer the match.
There are numerous calculators on GedMatch and results each vary slightly.



Here is the Oracle for the Neanderthal:


All of the Neanderthals are primarily African. I find it very interesting.
You can run all the ancient DNA samples. It's fun! I can also run the DNA of any kit number.

Here is a relative who is 100% Armenian


Admixture is not 100% accurate. However, the fact that all the Neanderthals are mostly Sub-saharan African (SSA) in their admixtures, indicates that genetically, they were mostly Sub-saharan African with some North East African. However, admixture does not equal appearance. They may have been SSA, but their features may have changed due to adaptation to cold climate.

Lots of modern people carry traces from other continents of which they have no connection with. So small percentages are quite common. Lots of my matches are like 1% SSA or 1% South Asian. 1% Oceanic is also common. So is !-2% NA, with Eastern Europeans.

I'm in a FB Group and that's what we do!

Oh and the Doe DNA Project uses GedMatch. They are volunteers and some of their work is shared publicly. Here is their spreadsheet:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1O2GYCflA5CpOWkp-XBHaExE6_ocVNbJN/edit#gid=82211262





muriel_volestrangler

(105,821 posts)
41. It's meaningless for the Neanderthal
Fri May 3, 2024, 05:22 AM
May 2024

It does not mean "the Neanderthals were African". The "North East African" that a modern DNA database has as a reference is North East Africans from long after 29,000 years ago. The Neanderthal's genes could not be made up of sets of genes from after they lived. North East Africans may well have inherited some Neanderthal genes, but so have various groups that are listed as "-" in the picture in #31, such as West Mediterranean.

In one sense, we (and Neanderthals) are all 100% African - all humans descend from a population in Eastern Africa, a few hundred thousand years ago. But when someone defines group as 'Baltic' etc., you're looking at a moment in time where they reckon there was little enough migration to be able to fix groups, and their genes, to those points. That might be 1492 CE, or a general "people who think their ancestors were all in this area in the 19th century", or similar. But it's well after 29,000 BCE.

(on reload, your pictures did show up for me)

Aussie105

(7,720 posts)
34. I was going to say there is a lot of guess work involved.
Fri May 3, 2024, 04:00 AM
May 2024

Like the hair, skin, eye color.

But then I read this:

"Neanderthal ethnic admixture is about 75% Sub-Saharan Africa and most of the rest is North East Africa."

So they have it right.

My wife is 2% Sub-Saharan African - is she Neanderthal, slightly?

She can trace those genes back about 4 generations.
All the way back to - you guessed it - a female slave from Africa.

LeftInTX

(34,031 posts)
40. What's weird is: Neanderthals carried mostly African genes, but modern Africans do not carry the Neanderthal genes.
Fri May 3, 2024, 04:54 AM
May 2024

Neanderthals were part of the migration out of Africa. They lived their life in Eurasia. And eventually became a distinct Home sapien who had different ethnic/traits etc than Africans. They didn't return to Africa, but instead their genes were spread around Eurasia. I have read that Native Americans surprisingly, carry the highest percentage of Neanderthal genes, even though Neanderthal's never lived in North America!

Yes, the appearance is pretty much guess work. There are markers for eye and hair color etc. Bone structure of Neanderthal drawings has remained the same over the years.

snot

(11,586 posts)
48. I think there's been a tendency to assume
Fri May 3, 2024, 12:32 PM
May 2024

...that because Homo Sapiens prevailed, they must have been smarter or better; but I've sometimes wondered whether they might just have been more sociopathic.

Aussie105

(7,720 posts)
50. Homo sapiens prevailed?
Fri May 3, 2024, 11:42 PM
May 2024

Nope, the locals bred with the incoming Neanderthals.

No prevailing involved, just one big melting pot.

Most of us are a mixture of genes from different parts of history and the world.

Makes me laugh at 'white supremacists' - most of them are unlikely to be 'pure', whatever that means to them.

'Racial purity' is a concept that doesn't apply in the real world.

Biologists will tell you outbreeding - mixing diverse gene pools together - is a good thing.
Inbreeding, sticking to a small local gene pool, isn't.

Breeders of pedigree dogs will agree. Importing fresh blood to improve the breed.
(Any labrador breeders reading this?)

snot

(11,586 posts)
54. My understanding is that only ca. 2%
Tue May 7, 2024, 06:00 PM
May 2024

of modern humans' genes are understood as having come from the Neanderthals.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Face of a 75,000-year-old...