4 ms·
Look at the artist's rendition of the hominid. Then read the article where they're talking about likeness and genetic similarity to Neanderthals. Then conside
by Mikeb85 4y ago
Look at the artist's rendition of the hominid. Then read the article where they're talking about likeness and genetic similarity to Neanderthals. Then consider what we know of what genes Neanderthals passed along, especially relating to skin tone, eye and hair colour...
There's a constant attempt in the British archaeology sphere to paint 'indigenous' Britons as dark-skinned even though all the evidence points to them being very light-skinned (as you'd expect at their latitude). It's not just this article but many articles.
- meheleventyone 4y agoThis seems like you injecting your own political hobby horse into the arena. It’s an illustration not a diatribe. The article doesn’t mention skin colour and casts doubt on the link to Neanderthals.
- Mikeb85 4y ago> The article doesn’t mention skin colour Which is why the article picture is so confusing and misleading. Why not show some bones? Why not show the researcher? It's intended to mislead...
- meheleventyone 4y agoOr it’s just there to make people tell on themselves in comments sections. Both seem plausible. I personally think it’s a nice illustration in a relatively banal if interesting article.
- Mikeb85 4y ago> tell on themselves Really? "If you don't believe this you're racist" I've got dark hair dark eyes tanned skin and no British ancestry at all. I look more Middle Eastern than British... I just hate that a discipline I love (archaeology) is becoming so politicised. The past literally means nothing to the present or future beyond being interesting...
- meheleventyone 4y agoThen stop politicising it. By the way the part you cut out your quote was not meant as an accusation. Just to juxtapose how ludicrous jumping to the conclusion you did was. Occams Razor favours my explanation in the following paragraph.