[removed]

Yes - it annoys me that they always give women plucked eyebrows in these things - even although that wasn't a practice.

It controlled Greece and was controlled by greeks for most of the East Roman empire's history.

Find an attractive young gal who's been backpacking for a year, that would be a better representation. Smooth, hydrated skin, and cosmetic grooming seem a step too far. I mean unless the photo is if we extracted DNA from the skull and cloned this person, this is what she'd look like now in which case, yeah ok, let's make her!

Greeks continued to exist and create art during the roman era.

This was really interesting. Thank you for posting

Bunch of people misreading the article. It says the statue dates back to the 2nd century CE (100-200 CE), the peak of the Roman Empire. It is not stated where in the Empire the statue was originally built, as this is not known. However it was later used to adorn a Greek building during the Byzantine period around the 8th or 9th century. During this time, the locals would have referred to it as Heracles.

Was just gonna say this! Maybe more than 30 years ago: and the technology is exactly the same.

The eyeglasses were what did me in! I remember an interview with the artist and he had very specific reasoning behind why he chose those frames

Alright but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?!?!

Thank you for your reply

Is the medieval Scottish woman single?

I’m no expert but, based off skeletal remains, they can’t know how fat the person was nor precisely determine the cartilaginous parts of the head like the ears and nose.

I still think its close to allow for a proper idea of what the person looks like. I think its cool when they use this tech to solve cold cases https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSA78m3sj0I

[removed]

Agreed. Her eyebrows are also way too neat.

This is headed to the British Museum in London where it 'belongs', right?

Cannons in your specified period were cast as one piece - there's not much machine parts to be fitted or interchanged.

I've ALWAYS wanted to see that done. Some of the facial recreations seem way too ugly to be real.

Who We Are and How We Got Here by David Reich. Fascinating book! A bit slow going for a layman, but I loved it.

You have a point. A peasant would have a fair amount of weathering on her face

I recall a source stating that after rent, wood fuel was one of the biggest reoccurring expenses for a late medieval/early modern English household in the cities. I'll have to look it up again.

It should be noted that the coal mines in England were also conveniently located at the coast, so they could be shipped to the urban settlements of the country in bulk through sea transport.

EDIT: Found something in one of the volumes of History of Agriculture and Prices in England - there's a chapter on Fuel that states that a hundred faggots (a tied bundle of wood sticks, about 3 feet long and 2 feet wide) was sold wholesale at Cambridge for 6 shillings 8 pences in 1512. Compare this to an average of 2 shillings and 8 pences between 1260-1400 for a hundred faggots. So there was definitely a steady increase during and after the 15th century for wood.

The price of "sea" coal varied in price, depending how close of an access a market had to the coastal coal mines. At York in 1402-1404, a chaldron of coal (36 bushels by volume, equivalent to 1.5 tonnes of coal) could be bought wholesale at 5 shillings, dropping to 4 shillings by 1419. At the coastal Sunderland area, the price of coal was about half as much.

It's not just about population - China by the 1800s had a population approaching half a billion, but they had almost no industrialization compare to the Europeans at the time.

>Were they really there? I thought they made it to the point of being equivalent to the 15th century but never got any further technologically.

In terms of metallurgical technology, they were closer to 13th century Europe-level. Just looking at iron production, the Romans of the late Empire were still running dinky bloomery furnaces to smelt iron- not much different from the ones their forefathers were operating when their city was found.

Historic and archeological evidence suggest the Romans never produced more than a hundred pounds of iron from their furnaces, while European smelters by the time of the 1200s were already producing nearly a ton of iron per run from their larger furnaces (which were more efficient in terms of manpower and fuel consumption). By the 1300s, they were able to produce a few tons of iron from each furnace operation, which spelled out to a greater and cheap iron supply that helped pushed the adoption of plate armour, and then gun artillery.

They were not taken to teach the public, they were trophies. For context you'd have to read about them and put the pieces together yourself.

[removed]