In a thread at The Escapist, somebody cited this image from my blog:
If memory serves me right, I first found it at the now-defunct HBDbooks blog. Can you guess which one is Australian Aboriginal, and which one Slavic? The one on the left belonged to an Aboriginal man who lived some time in the 19th century. He belonged to the Pintupi (or Pintubi) tribe. Jim Vanhollebeke wrote about it on canovan.com:
The controversial Pintubi-1 skull of Australia (pictured above) is a paradox of paleoanthropology. As a hominid fossil, its so young that it has been assigned to a tribe that survived into the last century. A modern aboriginal skull. Yet its morphology could be described as archaic. The skulls history is shrouded in mystery (not unlike others from the down under). Even without documentation, its age and Australoid identity are indisputable. The man it inhabited lived An anthropologic paradox very recently (in paleo-terms), likely in the 1800s or later. It is in perfect condition and shows no signs of antiquity. The skull was discovered or obtained around 1905 near the lower Darling River in New South Wales, Australia. Beyond that, all we are able to determine is that it is said to be a large adult 50 year old male from the Pintubi tribe…
The subject skull, modern in age, yet archaic in structure is a relevant example and deserves the following brief description.
Even if a pathological oddity it would demand attention but an anthropologist at the University of Michigan assures us that this is not the case and that this specimen isn’t that unusual.
But somebody at The Escapist couldn’t believe that the Pintubi is a modern skull. He writes:
(Supposedly a comparison between an aboriginal skull and a slav skull).
For a start it comes from a blog labelled as “Jew among you” and is apparently dedicated to “race realism”. I did a reserve Google image search to find out where it had originally came from and among nuggets like Stormfront and some Nazi forum I found the original source from early 2009, over a year before your link was made:
It’s in Spanish but a quick translate brings up the skulls true identity, human vs Neanderthal! You’ve been caught red-handed.
The poster’s “research” apparently consisted of a quick google search, and involved no critical thinking. Tellingly, everybody else in that thread took his words at face value and let it go at that. Naturally, I went ahead and pointed out their error. You would think that they would be embarrassed at having mistaken an Aboriginal skull for a Neanderthal, that it would illustrate the exact opposite of what they wish to believe about race. But I predict that the matter will be dropped and ignored.
I don’t read Spanish, but I’m sure some of you readers do. So please, if it’s not too much trouble, one of you post an English translation of the important parts of the Spanish blog cited above. I’d like to know if it’s a simple mistake or perhaps something else.