Prehistoric? Are You Sure?

November17

Meet the Ancestors — Exhibition Reveals Faces of Prehistoric Humans


From the article:

Her clothes are made from fur, hemp and nettle and for decoration she sports ivory and bone beads. She has dark hair worn in dreadlocks, tattoos and a penetrating stare.

Dreadlocks? So people weren’t combing their hair back then either, lol?  Also, I didn’t know their were people of color in France so long ago?  Apparently the “artist” took a lot of license in adding eye color, skin color?, hair style, and jewelry. Unless the hair remained when she was found. To me, the head  looks strangely out of balance with the body.

http://news.yahoo.com/meet-ancestors-exhibition-reveals-faces-prehistoric-humans-081855766.html

Doug 

You have to understand that she also uses a lot of “artistic license” to fill in the many gaps when doing this kind of work. This is typical of everyone who reconstructs prehistoric people like this. They almost always get the faces wrong, because there is no way to accurately measure fat layers in ancient people. Any real anthropologist will tell you that almost all human remains this ancient show signs of malnutrition, and would not have chubby cheeks or any excess fat anywhere on their bodies. Many died of starvation. There is no way this woman would have looked like the reconstructed woman. The man, on the other hand is probably a lot closer. And unless the ancient clothing, ornaments, etc. were discovered with the skeleton, it is all guesswork too, except that they would definitely have worn animal skins. Things like tattooing, hairstyles, etc, are all guesswork and artistic license. As far as the woman being tall, it depends on how tall the other woman is. Height can be pretty closely determined from the skeletal features. It is still really cool to see people do stuff like this. It makes the long gone people more real to us. The girl may also have had some unknown medical condition. The article says she died young.

Adam

im looking at the 4th pic with four pics on the wall the 2nd one from the left looks way different than your average skeleton so im curious how they made the model to look so close to how we look today i kinda think this might be biased im in radiology and the structure of those cheek bones would make the jaw line way bigger and and the head should be really short and wide like extremely brachiocephalic. the skull cap is really small but the maniquins have normal foreheads. im extremely confused wish it was here so i can go check it out and see how they do this processes and might be completely surprised.

 hotwire 

The article said, “Likenesses are obtained by the computer
modelling of 18 craniometric data points across the skull.
These give detailed pointers to muscle structure and shape of features that define a face such as the nose, chin and forehead.”

The article also said, “Her reconstruction of “Lucy”, a famous
human-like creature that lived around 3.2 million years ago, meanwhile, stunned visitors to the National Museum of
Anthropology and History in Mexico City for its life-like quality.”

Based on her own process of reconstruction (18 craniometric data points across the skull,) her reconstruction of “Lucy” is merely conjecture. Only 5 small pieces of cranium were found, and 3/4 of the jaw bone. Daynes had to take artistic license to
complete the reconstruction.

Demogorgon

They look like modern humans, so what’s the difference?


Posted November 17, 2014 by Sue Says in category Out of the Ordinary

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*