Face Of Stone Age Woman Reconstructed With 4,000-Year-Old Skull Found In Sweden

Face Of Stone Age Woman Reconstructed With 4,000-Year-Old Skull Found In Sweden.

elsewhere this is under a smash or pass vote...

Swedish women sure have changed, which makes it almost certain the Vikings well you know and pillaged the region over the years. Almost like the Vikings pillaged the ugly out of them.

Not to offend even more people, but she seems to have an Eastern European look, as well as some, have mentioned she looks a little like the caveman version of the artist herself.

Archaeologist Helena Gjaerum completed the reconstruction



www.archaeology.org...

Neolithic Woman’s Remains Reconstructed in Sweden

AddThis Social Bookmark Button Share
Friday, March 18, 2022

HÄRNÖSAND, SWEDEN—Live Science reports that forensic artist Oscar Nilsson has reconstructed the face and physique of a woman who lived some 4,000 years ago. The woman’s remains were discovered along with the remains of a child in a cist grave in northern Sweden in 1923. Nilsson noted that the woman had been in her late 20s or early 30s when she died, and she stood about four feet 11 inches tall. The bones show no signs of malnutrition, injury, or disease, although she may have been killed by an illness that did not leave evidence on her remains. Because DNA extracted from the remains was too degraded for use, Nilsson based her appearance on evidence for the wave of pale-skinned, dark-haired, and brown-eyed farmers who migrated into the region between 4,000 and 5,000 years ago. Archaeologist Helena Gjaerum completed the reconstruction, which is on display at the Västernorrlands Museum, by crafting clothing for the model out of deer, moose, and elk with Neolithic techniques. The shoes—made of reindeer, beaver, and fox—likely had padding made of hay. Gjaerum processed the hides by hand and treated them with a fatty mixture of moose brain to preserve the leather and keep it pliable. “I think it would be crazy to think she’d have primitive clothes,” Gjaerum said

dup

a reply to: putnam6


Ummm...she does have a certain Herman Munsteresqueness...round about the head and face...( or rather angular about the head and face)...

Hubba...Hubba...





YouSir

She is unattractive because of the interpretation of the nose. As it's soft tissue, they can't really know what it looked like. They deliberately made her ugly.

I like how they interpreted her hair in a modern "design".

Pathetic science. 👎🏻

Oscar Nilsson did the facial reconstruction while Helena Gjaerum created what she perceived as period clothing. The reconstruction does seem to resemble Helena, which begs the question we dare not ask.

Looks like Carrie Fisher on steroids. Definitely a brute of a woman, probably had to be then.

originally posted by: Creep Thumper
She is unattractive because of the interpretation of the nose. As it's soft tissue, they can't really know what it looked like. They deliberately made her ugly.

I like how they interpreted her hair in a modern "design".

Pathetic science. 👎🏻

The sculptor has some serious forensic reconstruction awards

www.odnilsson.com...

This is a forensic reconstruction it's been proven in missing person cases to get close to what a real person looked like. Sure the nose cartilage is gone but there are other clues to watch the nose length wide and nostril size should look like.


www.sciencealert.com...

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: Creep Thumper
She is unattractive because of the interpretation of the nose. As it's soft tissue, they can't really know what it looked like. They deliberately made her ugly.

I like how they interpreted her hair in a modern "design".

Pathetic science. 👎🏻

The sculptor has some serious forensic reconstruction awards

www.odnilsson.com...

This is a forensic reconstruction it's been proven in missing person cases to get close to what a real person looked like. Sure the nose cartilage is gone but there are other clues to watch the nose length wide and nostril size should look like.


www.sciencealert.com...

Such as?

a reply to: putnam6
She kind of reminds me of the gremlin from spider man.

originally posted by: YouSir
a reply to: putnam6


Ummm...she does have a certain Herman Munsteresqueness...round about the head and face...( or rather angular about the head and face)...

Hubba...Hubba...

YouSir

I'm not gonna act like wouldn't cozy up with her at a bar, hell I think I have with a few of her decendants. Besides, don't we all really want our ladies to be savages in the bedroom? When the campfire grew low Grog didn't care about square head


Seriously though she probably excelled at other traits infinitely more important than being easy on the eyes.

originally posted by: Creep Thumper
She is unattractive because of the interpretation of the nose. As it's soft tissue, they can't really know what it looked like. They deliberately made her ugly.

I like how they interpreted her hair in a modern "design".

Pathetic science. 👎🏻

Ummm...actually...every singular feature is like a patchwork of ugly stitched together to make a hideous whole...

Shades of Mary Shelley...and "Bride of Frankenstein"...



YouSir

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: YouSir
a reply to: putnam6


Ummm...she does have a certain Herman Munsteresqueness...round about the head and face...( or rather angular about the head and face)...

Hubba...Hubba...

YouSir

Seriously though she probably excelled at other traits infinitely more important than being easy on the eyes.

Ummm...we know where you were going with that...

D'oh...



YouSir

originally posted by: YouSir

originally posted by: Creep Thumper
She is unattractive because of the interpretation of the nose. As it's soft tissue, they can't really know what it looked like. They deliberately made her ugly.

I like how they interpreted her hair in a modern "design".

Pathetic science. 👎🏻

Ummm...actually...every singular feature is like a patchwork of ugly stitched together to make a hideous whole...

Shades of Mary Shelley...and "Bride of Frankenstein"...

YouSir

We are talking the Neolithic period, yet you want conventional beauty. Shows how shallow the modern male is.

originally posted by: Creep Thumper
She is unattractive because of the interpretation of the nose. As it's soft tissue, they can't really know what it looked like. They deliberately made her ugly.

I like how they interpreted her hair in a modern "design".

Pathetic science. 👎🏻

She's unattractive because she resembles a lifelike rendering of a Flintstones character that was originally conjured up by someone who never actually met a stone age person but was simply told "make her look funny".

originally posted by: Crackalackin
a reply to: putnam6
She kind of reminds me of the gremlin from spider man.

She definitely has the hobgoblin look, throw on some orange tinted goggles and a christmas elf hat with the pointy fabric ears and she's perfect for the role.

originally posted by: Creep Thumper

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: Creep Thumper
She is unattractive because of the interpretation of the nose. As it's soft tissue, they can't really know what it looked like. They deliberately made her ugly.

I like how they interpreted her hair in a modern "design".

Pathetic science. 👎🏻

The sculptor has some serious forensic reconstruction awards

www.odnilsson.com...

This is a forensic reconstruction it's been proven in missing person cases to get close to what a real person looked like. Sure the nose cartilage is gone but there are other clues to watch the nose length wide and nostril size should look like.


www.sciencealert.com...

Such as?

What happened did you break the Google button on your computer?


www.boredpanda.com... organic

The skill of some forensic artists, professionals who are dedicated to the Facial reconstruction of the deceased, is awe-inspiring. This time, we want to talk about one professional in particular who, unlike most in forensic science, did not resort to using a computer-aided approach, but instead used his hands.

For Oscar Nilsson, a Swedish archaeologist and sculptor specializing in the reconstruction of human faces, the number of hours spent in each rebuilding could easily add up to 200. Of course, Nilsson does use 3D-printed skulls of his muses to preserve the original skeletal excavations; however, the rest of face sculpting is done by hand.

In 1996, he opened a company called O.D. Nilssons. The company collaborates with museums around the world, helping them restore the faces of people whose graves were discovered during archaeological excavations. Facial reconstruction doesn't only require an artistic touch, but also a vast knowledge of historical facts to make the people seem as natural as can be. "The human face is a motif that never ceases to fascinate me: the variation of the underlying structure as well as the variety in details seem endless. And all the faces I reconstruct are unique. They are all individuals" - says the artist on his site.

a reply to: putnam6

You're the one who claimed that soft tissue can be theorized. Back it up.

Please note in your quote that the guy uses artistic interpretation.

originally posted by: YouSir

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: YouSir
a reply to: putnam6


Ummm...she does have a certain Herman Munsteresqueness...round about the head and face...( or rather angular about the head and face)...

Hubba...Hubba...

YouSir

Seriously though she probably excelled at other traits infinitely more important than being easy on the eyes.

Ummm...we know where you were going with that...

D'oh...

YouSir

Nah I already made my bedroom joke and it offended people,

Leaning more toward survival skills, foraging, hunting not twirling on a stripper pole and twerking.

the big snozola there is probably an environmental reason

originally posted by: Creep Thumper

originally posted by: YouSir

originally posted by: Creep Thumper
She is unattractive because of the interpretation of the nose. As it's soft tissue, they can't really know what it looked like. They deliberately made her ugly.

I like how they interpreted her hair in a modern "design".

Pathetic science. 👎🏻

Ummm...actually...every singular feature is like a patchwork of ugly stitched together to make a hideous whole...

Shades of Mary Shelley...and "Bride of Frankenstein"...

YouSir

We are talking the Neolithic period, yet you want conventional beauty. Shows how shallow the modern male is.

Ummm...how does the above square with...

She is unattractive because of the interpretation of the nose. As it's soft tissue, they can't really know what it looked like. They deliberately made her ugly. I like how they interpreted her hair in a modern "design". Pathetic science. 👎🏻

Squaring the circle were we...?


D'oh...



YouSir

originally posted by: YouSir

originally posted by: Creep Thumper

originally posted by: YouSir

originally posted by: Creep Thumper
She is unattractive because of the interpretation of the nose. As it's soft tissue, they can't really know what it looked like. They deliberately made her ugly.

I like how they interpreted her hair in a modern "design".

Pathetic science. 👎🏻

Ummm...actually...every singular feature is like a patchwork of ugly stitched together to make a hideous whole...

Shades of Mary Shelley...and "Bride of Frankenstein"...

YouSir

We are talking the Neolithic period, yet you want conventional beauty. Shows how shallow the modern male is.

Ummm...how does the above square with...

She is unattractive because of the interpretation of the nose. As it's soft tissue, they can't really know what it looked like. They deliberately made her ugly. I like how they interpreted her hair in a modern "design". Pathetic science. 👎🏻

Squaring the circle were we...?

D'oh...

YouSir

I'm not the one disappointed by her looks. You are.

originally posted by: Creep Thumper

originally posted by: YouSir

originally posted by: Creep Thumper

originally posted by: YouSir

originally posted by: Creep Thumper
She is unattractive because of the interpretation of the nose. As it's soft tissue, they can't really know what it looked like. They deliberately made her ugly.

I like how they interpreted her hair in a modern "design".

Pathetic science. 👎🏻

Ummm...actually...every singular feature is like a patchwork of ugly stitched together to make a hideous whole...

Shades of Mary Shelley...and "Bride of Frankenstein"...

YouSir

We are talking the Neolithic period, yet you want conventional beauty. Shows how shallow the modern male is.

Ummm...how does the above square with...

She is unattractive because of the interpretation of the nose. As it's soft tissue, they can't really know what it looked like. They deliberately made her ugly. I like how they interpreted her hair in a modern "design". Pathetic science. 👎🏻

Squaring the circle were we...?

D'oh...

YouSir

I'm not the one disappointed by her looks. You are.

Ummm...does my Avatar...look disappointed to you...?

I actually said...Hubba...Hubba...Sarc/

Asymmetry...is actually far more interesting to me than symmetry...

When I see a face that has distinct hemispherical differentiation...I interpret it as a unique attempt at differentiation to create a whole...an asymmetrical whole due to the unequal mix of genetic dominant traits...whereas full symmetrical features in my opinion are merely proof of genetic dominance...from either the XY...or XX...



YouSir