[removed]

[removed]

I usually mistrust these. I suspect they are invariably portrayed better looking than they really were. This ladies skin looks quite nice. It reminds me of the facial reconstruction of Richard III. They gave his face skin even a supermodel would sell their grandmother for.

I didn’t see in the article why they believe the young woman died of.

It'd have to be super early Byzantine era, as Christianity was pretty solidly established after not too long - I can't imagine much support after 450, or maybe 550 at the absolute latest for a Hercules/Heracles statue.

[removed]

I mean i guess if they werent buried we also wouldnt really need to “find” them.

[deleted]

Not exactly the same, but the John List case was a pretty compelling use of reconstruction

Well, the early "Byzantine" era (It's just late antiquity Roman, Eastern Roman if you must) did still have Latin usage for much of it until Heraclius at an official state level. So I couldn't quite go that far as I didn't catch the exact date. Maybe you're right though, if it's post Heraclius than it would be Greek Romans.

First of all, your premise is wrong. Human history is a long sequence of populations interbreeding with each other, forming new populations, and on and on. For example, people in modern India are a mix of three major population groups who met about four thousand years ago - before then, there likely wouldn’t have been that many people who look like they do now. Incidentally, this fact makes notions of racial purity even more ridiculous than they already are. (If you’re interested in this kind of thing, I recommend David Reich’s book - his lab at Harvard has been at the forefront of this research).

And secondly, even outside of genetics, there is a lot of literature about how the different diets of pre-modern humans led to them having different facial structures (the introduction of sugar and soft foods have led to degeneration in our jaw and facial shape today). These reconstructions can bring those epigenetic changes to life as well.

The pegs are used as an estimate of how thick the tissue is on a certain area of the face. Then they build muscle/skin/fat over the top of the pegs to the correct thickness. They estimate thickness based on gender, age and race. For example, most white females in their 20s have a similar amount of tissue that covers their face (assuming they are of average weight).

What’s wrong with the one guy’s upper lip?

I wish they would do this with a recently deceased person who we have photos of and see how accurate it is based just off their skull.

I can just look in the mirror to see what a medieval scottish peasant looked like tbh

The article also says Byzantine Era, and at the point they were firmly Greek Romans.

[removed]

Who'd have thought they look remarkably like modern Scottish people s/

lol, sorry to hear that. On the bright side, lifetime of learning, right? :D

I cover it so students feel some sense of their professional "heritage" and to motivate why we care about planar mechanisms at all in the age of mechatronics. And my class is very demanding, so it's a "sit back and enjoy it" lecture to give them a breather.

Take a look at Hans Holbein's portraits of the court of Henry VIII, which are some of the most accurate and lifelike portraits of humans at the time. It sorta blows my mind how those people from that age looked so much like people today, minus the attire. I know it's like "Well they're people what do you expect??", but it's just alien to me to think these people looked and probably acted EXACTLY like us modern folk.

https://imgc.artprintimages.com/img/print/portrait-of-a-young-merchant-supposedly-hans-von-muffel-from-nuremberg_u-l-q1i89340.jpg?artHeight=900&artPerspective=n&artWidth=900&background=fbfbfb

Has anyone done one on a skull that we have photos of the person, so we can see if it is an accurate representation. Or just artistic interpretation.

[deleted]

Can confirm likeness legitimacy. Source: Scottish

Does anyone know of some good sources that discuss the relative prices and levels of consumption of different fuels (especially wood, charcoal, and coal) in England over time?

The article provides a citation (to a Wikipedia article, which is better than nothing) for the claim that by [the year] 1000, only 15% percent of England was forested. Then it claims "Consequently wood as a heat fuel was scarce and so beginning in the 16th century we see a marked shift over to coal as a heating fuel for things like cooking and home heating."

This seems very plausible, but it would be great if someone knows of a source that verifies this claim. [In the 16th century, people in England started shifting to using coal more than wood for heating. This shift occurred because wood was scarce (and thus more expensive than coal).]

[removed]