103

Face of 75,000-year-old Neanderthal woman revealed (www.bbc.com)

submitted 4 months ago by FlyingSquid@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

25 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Just jaw-dropping to me.

Official announcement with more information: https://www.arch.cam.ac.uk/news/shanidar-z-film

all 26 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Pretzilla@lemmy.world 55 points 4 months ago

She looks pretty good for her age

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 18 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGMILF.

[-] toynbee@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago

This sounds like something Quagmire would say.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago

Maybe an ancient Quagmire subspecies. Homo Neanderthalensis Giggity.

[-] vivavideri@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

I am CRYING 🤣☠️

[-] valen@lemmy.world 27 points 4 months ago

It's totally Marjorie Taylor Greene

[-] WeirdGoesPro@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 4 months ago

That’s an insult to Neanderthals.

[-] JeeBaiChow@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Came here to say this. Explains her primitive grasp on basic concepts and limited capacity for reason.

[-] Ersatz86@lemmy.world 22 points 4 months ago

Marge?

[-] beerclue@lemmy.world 12 points 4 months ago

Face reveal at 75k?

[-] FancyPantsFIRE@lemm.ee 5 points 4 months ago

I’m getting Mona Lisa vibes.

[-] JeeBaiChow@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

I'm getting mtg. And I hate it.

[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Bone-a Lisa

[-] illumrial@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago

Would

[+] mipadaitu@lemmy.world -7 points 4 months ago

Fixed: One artists rendition of the way a neanderthal woman may have looked based on some research and measurements from a partially destroyed, but reconstructed skull... for a Netflix edutainment show.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 54 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Or you could go to the Cambridge page and read about what was done in detail and why they think it is an accurate representation.

Also, it's a BBC show. It's just being released worldwide by Netflix.

[-] prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works 24 points 4 months ago

Squid could you allow us a little outrage before you set us straight next time?

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 21 points 4 months ago

I'm sorry. Pretend I said nothing.

[-] prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works 12 points 4 months ago

ITS TOO LATE

[-] EditsHisComments@lemmy.world 14 points 4 months ago

NOW I'M OUTRAGED AGAIN

[-] mipadaitu@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago

It's cool stuff, BUT it's still an artists rendition. It's not fact.

Edutainment science is great, but when they pretend "This is what she looked like", it's bullshit. Then when someone comes back later and says "No, THIS is what she looked like" people get all confused and think science is dumb.

When you see interviews with the best science communicators, they always phrase it like "We used the best models we have, and we are confident that this is an accurate representation based on our current information" THAT would be a great sub-headline.

I just hate it when the news gets watered down to show an artists representation, no matter how good, as fact instead of probability.

[-] BertramDitore@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago

Fully agree. This edutainment disclaimer also applies when it comes to explanations of archaeological sites and the “daily life” of ancient populations. The stories the public hears are based on the best understanding of complex interpretations of ceramics, surface features, architecture, stratigraphy, etc. You could ask two equally talented archaeologists to interpret a site and get two equally convincing but completely different explanations. We just can’t know any of this for sure, it’s all filtered through the lens of the researcher, their methods, and their biases. And that’s okay. The best we can do is apply the most relevant and current methodology to interpret the evidence, be transparent about potential shortcomings, and be willing to change our conclusions if better evidence arises.

Lots of people are uncomfortable with “that’s just our best possible guess at the moment,” but that’s how interpretive social sciences work. Until we invent a time machine, educated guesses based on all the available evidence are the best we can do.

this post was submitted on 03 May 2024

103 points (91.9% liked)

World News

38563 readers

2426 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.