Scientists Build 'Frankenstein' Neanderthal Skeleton

LiveScience ^ | 10 March 2005 | Bjorn Carey

[DrDavid]

How did it look in a tux?

But the brain was from "Abbie Normal"

[Orbiter]

I'm thinking big bones supporting big muscles requiring big lungs supplying adequate oxygen. Kinda upends the humandoid-as-bumpercar theory. This skeletal interpolation of the fossil record and the tacit "proof" of an evolutionary basis for bell-shaped rib cages denies Occam his whetstone.

[VadeRetro]

I'm thinking big bones supporting big muscles requiring big lungs supplying adequate oxygen.

They weren't just us on a big scale, if that's what you're saying. They certainly averaged shorter than modern humans and were likely shorter than their contemporary "modern" Homo sapiens. Very short forearms and lower legs. You can see that in the skeleton depicted in the article. They had all the same bones as do we, but the length ratios are different. The lower spinal segments are shorter and thicker, which is why the waist is so short. The specimen in the photo has a lumbar region like an oak.

Kinda upends the humandoid-as-bumpercar theory. This skeletal interpolation of the fossil record and the tacit "proof" of an evolutionary basis for bell-shaped rib cages denies Occam his whetstone.

What a vague mumble all that is! Feel free to explain yourself.

[general_re]

I don't think it's kosher to mix bones of a 60,000 yr old skeleton found in Israel, with 70,000yr old bones found in France.

As long as they're honest about what they're doing (no "Look at this 100% complete and intact skeleton we found!"), then I don't see a problem with trying to put disparate pieces into a bigger picture. We can all exercise some common sense and realize the limits of such an exercise - off by a few millimeters here or there, maybe one of the specimens is unusual in a way we can't yet recognize, and so forth - but it's still interesting to see something similar to what we might see if we really did find a 100% complete and intact skeleton.

[AdmSmith]

[Junior]

I'm sure, as they were doing the reconstruction, they were also looking at the relative sizes and shapes of similar bones from other Neanderthal skeletons, which would give them an idea of how accurate the final product would be.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks null and void.

Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on, off, or alter the "Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list --
Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
The GGG Digest -- Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)

[dread78645]

I don't think it's kosher to mix bones of a 60,000 yr old skeleton found in Israel, with 70,000yr old bones found in France.

"Don't mix the milch and the fleisch" -- that's not kosher.

OK, smart ass-ing aside. I'd have to wonder about the specimens originating from different "tribes". Add in caloric intake and disease over the generations, the body can change a lot in 10,000 yrs.

[Dustbunny]

Although this sounds really interesting, I will take it with a grain of salt.

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

Some kook secular humanist scientist will want to clone this, no doubt.

Get ready. Yet, still no Bigfoot specimen!

[dread78645]

A slighty better view. Despite the image position, H. sapiens neanderthalensis (left) is a couple of inches shorter than H. sapiens sapiens.

[ValerieUSA]

There are modern men of varying heights -- Danny DeVito's skeleton may well more resemble a neanderthal's than it would Michael Jordan's. I wonder how much diversity in height and build is allowed for neanderthals?

[shuckmaster]

Humans have pretty tall attachments compared to most animals. Tall gearing is better for endurance running and for throwing. running all day across the grasslands.

Can you recommend a book or article with more information on this? It's an idea I've been tossing around & would like to read more about.

[Junior]

As Vade pointed out, it's not just the height and build, it's the ratio of bone length to cross-section, the shape and build of the muscle attachment points the shape of the skull and jaw, the angle at which the spinal cord enters the skull, the shape of the sinus cavities, etc. There are numerous morphological differences between Homo Sapien and Homo Neanderthalensis. A trained anthropologist or even anatomist can quickly tell the difference between human and Neanderthal bones.

[VadeRetro]

The best site I'd ever found on Neanderthals seems to have gone away for good. Googling around today, I noticed this site talks a lot about issues of muscle attachment, bone length, etc. It undercuts what I was saying about the Neanderthal fastball, though. [Pouts.]

[shuckmaster]

Thanks for an interesting site. I've got it bookmarked.
I'm an amatuer pursuing an idea that the evolution to anatomically modern humans was the result of a tribe(s) of long distance runners who subsisted by non-stop trailing the herd animals they eventually domesticated.

[LIConFem]

"All wrong. It looked like Peter Boyle."

Puttin' on the Ritz!! ;o)

[Nucluside]

Did you have to do that? (pic). ROFLMAO!

I think the assembling of a composite skeleton was entirely appropriate, but believe the problem is with species variation. For instance, a 6 ft tall man (homosapiens) may be long-waisted (as opposed to long wasted for Sen. Kennedy!)and actually have a trunk that would fit within some "normality curve" for a 6-3" or 6-4" person.
Also, are they sure that they didn't find a chick pelvis and include that with their model?

[VadeRetro]

It's not done off of height and build at all, but bone formation. There are actual diagnostic features involved, a large list. Occipital bun, brow ridge, large nasal opening, prognathism, femur-tibia ratio, bell-shaped rib cage, short and thick lumber region, etc.

[VadeRetro]

short and thick lumber region...

LumbAr!