Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Reddituser8018 t1_ir2e9qq wrote

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.

1,616

Laserbarrage t1_ir2qg4c wrote

Was going to say the same thing. I think there’s a reason they don’t tho. If the technology was proficiently accurate there’s no way they wouldn’t want to show off how accurate it is by using an example they could prove in modern time.

I have a suspicion it’s extremely not accurate.

744

dexable t1_ir35fof wrote

There is an exhibit called Probably Chelsea at the Exploratorium in San Francisco. It depicts several different sculptures based off the same DNA of a person. There is a lot of room for interpretation of things like DNA it seems.

https://www.exploratorium.edu/exhibits/probably-chelsea

287

Renjuro t1_ir387nc wrote

Very interesting. I’d say you have more to work with if you have the person’s skull though.

92

dexable t1_ir5jsv4 wrote

I believe the more information you have the more accurate you can probably get. I realize my response could read as a skeptical one. I just find this stuff very interesting and my personal thoughts on this are kind of a side tangent so I didn't include them in that post. I did in another response in this thread though if you are interested.

In the case of Chelsea there was no skull because well, she's still alive.

6

LeagueOfLegendsAcc t1_ir52tci wrote

I don't think they do sculptures off of the DNA when they make these renderings. I'm pretty sure I watched a doc one time and it explained that they actually re build the muscular features based off the skeleton and then add skin and other features on top. Not sure about that Chelsea exhibit but for the ones they did during the doc that's how it was done and it seems like a better method than trying to reconstruct based off of DNA alone.

16

dexable t1_ir5hzlb wrote

I think the more information you have the more accurate you can get. In the case of Chelsea there only was DNA available. Personally I find this stuff to just be very interesting. While some people are skeptical I just find this to be an intersection of art and science. In the Probably Chelsea exhibit they explain that the ones picked to show the media were of the higher percentages. However since Chelsea was open to it there was more they could depict based of her DNA. It's a pretty powerful exhibit to see because some of the possibilities look nothing like Chelsea. A person with that face would be identified as a completely different race as Chelsea. To me it empathized how much the concept of race is really a social response to the expression of a person's DNA. The idea that we could look like basically anybody else is really powerful.

It's a side tangent but if you are In San Francisco I recommend checking out the Exploratorium. It's a really fun and thought provoking science museum.

3

jalamole t1_ir49dnm wrote

This was really interesting. Thank you for posting

6

fuzzygondola t1_ir6jbbz wrote

Can we really not accurately detect "obvious features" like skin tone of a person based on the DNA? It's baffling to me. Those 30 predicted faces seem to have features randomly from all over the world.

2

dexable t1_ir6rdhn wrote

This does kind of get to the point of the exhibit. The researcher gave the press of the higher percentages to the press to give a more "potentially accurate" model. However most of the sculptures were created to showcase all the possibilities. Meaning there was a small chance that Chelsea could have looked like some of those but it was still there.

Skin tone is an interesting one, we would think it is simple but it is not. To use myself as an example my skin tone shade is closer to my mother's: light than my father's: medium-dark. However the undertone of my skin tone matches my father's golden undertones versus my mother's pink undertones. Which means the more of a tan I have the more I look like my dad to people. I also have my mother's eye shape but my father's eye color. My mother's hair color but my father's hair texture pattern.

I could go on but the point is that genes can really express themselves in a lot of varying ways.

1

dr_king_papa t1_itfffu1 wrote

Hmm, I feel something is off here. I saw this exhibit and maybe I didn't read all the details, but from what I remember, it was made by an artist, not a scientist. From the presentation, it seemed to suggest that the path from DNA to appearance has quite a bit of variance. If it is really so random, why do identical twins not display the same sort of variance in appearance? Yes, of course, any outcome is possible, but if it's astronomically unlikely, what's the point of highlighting it? Maybe I'm missing something?

1

dexable t1_itgm0ph wrote

Science requires one to cast aside ones prejudices and have an open mind to come to new understanding. Identical twins have more than just DNA in common. Look up some studies on identical twins if you are interested.

1

dr_king_papa t1_ithf50h wrote

Good science, and indeed rational thought, involves a prior belief (what one might call a prejudice), which is updated to form a posterior in the face of new evidence. The stronger the prior, the stronger the evidence needs to be to overcome that prior. I have not seen any new evidence, but I am open to integrating it if it is presented.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Extraordinary_claims_require_extraordinary_evidence

1

dexable t1_ithgrqt wrote

Strong words from someone who clearly didn't click on the original link and watch a 5 minute video.

1

keenox90 t1_ir9704l wrote

If that's true, it means we don't seem to know anything about how DNA influences looks. Those portraits look as random as they can be.

1

GronakHD t1_ir2v1lq wrote

100%. It will be showing how they could have looked based on the skull

115

jojohead24 t1_ir3o3d4 wrote

They use this to try and assist in identifying Jane & John Does. They even include them wearing any clothing found along with the body. It’s just really expensive. I know a podcast I listen to, Crime Junkie, did a fundraiser to help pay for some of these to help. They actually were able to identify like 3 which I think is a big deal. DNA ancestry sites are also great in finding families and identifying old cold case victims.

27

Dizzy_Duck_811 t1_ir4fi2p wrote

There was a 50 years cold case that was solved recently like this. A young girl was killed by someone the police has questioned a few times, but they’ve had no evidence. They had DNA saved from the crime, and they found a familial match. That is how they’ve solved the case. Her family was long gone by the time it was solved. They never got to know who killed her.

And this is not the only case like this!

12

DarkstarInfinity2020 t1_ir3hwam wrote

Judging by unknown but later identified skeletons who were reconstructed (and their pictures in life,) the veracity of the reconstruction depends upon the reconstructor.

25

Life_has_0_meaning t1_ir39m8y wrote

Agreed. But maybe they just don’t want us digging up granny so we can see what she’d look like in a colour photo.

10

AgentCC t1_ir42csc wrote

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.

5

hogger85 t1_ir4f6sk wrote

I believ they can look at some factors of the the attachment points and think can see stresses from overweight

10

Tiny_Rat t1_ir4j65s wrote

Also, if other parts of the skeleton are available, they can sometimes see gout or other illnesses associated with obesity.

5

AtsignAmpersat t1_ir58sb6 wrote

Someone has definitely tried it. Like wouldn’t that be the first or second thing you would test? And since we haven’t seen that, we can conclude that it is not accurate and this has basically artwork.

2

Lifekraft t1_ir4msii wrote

Thats artist vision usually, as they call it. At least it's what they did the last 20 years. And it was still the same melody last year. Literraly an ongoing "joke" for more time than that probably.

1

Br12286 t1_ir525zo wrote

I always think that too when I see these. How do they know if they had full lips or thin ones? How do they know what the tip of their nose looked like when it’s all cartilage? I’m sure they get close but there are just some features they can’t ever get right because the reference for it doesn’t exist and is left to interpretation.

1

PurpleAntifreeze t1_ir2zlx6 wrote

These are done for recently deceased people, specifically those whose remains are skeletal or other wise decayed beyond identification.

The reproductions are accurate enough to assist in the identification of murder victims. It’s not like this is new information, either

54

Ok-Farmer-2695 t1_ir3izen wrote

Source?

5

Amythyst34 t1_ir3layr wrote

https://naturalhistory.si.edu/education/teaching-resources/written-bone/forensic-anthropology/forensic-facial-reconstruction

17

Ok-Farmer-2695 t1_ir3rcc9 wrote

Thanks for the link. It was interesting, and it says the reconstructions are just approximations.

> Markers indicate the depths of tissue to be added to the skull (a cast in this case). Studies over the past century of males and females of different ancestral groups determine the measures of these depths.

> The finished product only approximates actual appearance because the cranium does not reflect soft-tissue details (eye, hair, and skin color; facial hair; the shape of the lips; or how much fat tissue covers the bone). Yet a facial reconstruction can put a name on an unidentified body in a modern forensic case.

How they go from approximation to identifying bodies goes unexplained, but I’d guess they use other circumstantial data, like “Hey a Caucasian male hiker in his 20s went missing in this area 50 years ago and this fits the bill.”

5

Amythyst34 t1_ir3t0yr wrote

I've seen some documentaries that show super close reconstructions, but I'm sure those are the exception and not the rule. "Not an exact science," a the saying goes. But even if it brings closure to only a few families, I think it's a worthwhile endeavor. Plus, it will only get better over time as those who do it learn and utilize technology.

9

Tiny_Rat t1_ir4jfb7 wrote

The approximation is often close enough that friends or family can recognize the deceased. It might not look exactly like them, but can be close enough to significantly narrow down the search for their identity.

1

Renjuro t1_ir37zs6 wrote

What are you talking about? Forensic scientists rebuild faces from skulls of the recently deceased all the time. It’s used for body identification.

43

[deleted] t1_ir3kk7e wrote

[deleted]

−7

adinfinitum225 t1_ir3nt58 wrote

They can't give anything pictures if they don't know who the body belongs to

17

JeffieSandBags t1_ir3sxr1 wrote

How can you know who it is if you never got pictures of em?!?

−1

[deleted] t1_ir4byto wrote

[deleted]

−1

Tiny_Rat t1_ir4jaom wrote

No, these reconstructions are done by forensic artists, not AI and they're most often used in canvassing for information, basically hoping someone sees the reconstruction and recognizes them.

3

Dizzy_Duck_811 t1_ir4fs1t wrote

The forensic science is doing experiments on real dead bodies. I can’t remember what they call it, but the people who donate their bodies to science, are worked on by different departments. They watch in real time how long it takes for a body to decompose under different circumstances, and they go from there with their discoveries. They can come quite close to what a person might look. It’s not perfect, but it’s something.

3

professionalser t1_ir2qhs5 wrote

They did something like this with modern animal skeletons. They recreated them like they would a dinosaur. Some of the results were pretty comical.

35

Tiny_Rat t1_ir4jjg4 wrote

They recreated them lime they would have recreated a dinosaur 50 years or so, you mean. Modern archeological reconstruction considers much more than just the skeleton

7

KombuchaBot t1_ir4hky9 wrote

Here is a photo of April Dawn Lacey who was identified after they had done reconstruction, alongside a pencil sketch based on their conclusions

It's pretty good, I think; the eyes aren't quite right (it looks as if hers are just a fraction more deepset), and her eyebrows arched a bit more than they accounted for, but the nose, mouth and shape of the face generally are on point

25

ImperatorRomanum t1_ir31wno wrote

According to my Native American history professor, when James Chatters did the initial facial reconstruction of the Kennwick Man, he admitted he had been watching a lot of TNG which is why the reconstruction looked suspiciously like Patrick Stewart. Take these with a shaker of salt.

22

stratamaniac t1_ir3sow3 wrote

Police have done it with human remains before as part of criminal investigation but I don’t know if it generated any leads.

2

Valerian_ t1_ir3ct9r wrote

That's most probably what they use to train the AI automatically: hundreds of scans of skulls and photos of the person it was before, and the AI does trial and error to correct its algorithm until the reconstruction matches the photos.

1

Tiny_Rat t1_ir4jr0u wrote

These reconstructions aren't made by AI. They're mostly made by people trained in forensic reconstruction, either as physical or digital 3D models (or both, as in this specific project)

5

admuh t1_ir4o3pl wrote

This is basically how machine learning works. They show the computer a scan of a skull and an image of the person's face and with enough samples it can produce an approximation of one without the other

1

CapAnsonTemp t1_irgvrd7 wrote

They've done lots of that with crime scenes and victim IDs. And the results are surprisingly accurate. These ARE what these people looked like.

1

JakobXP t1_it5smng wrote

That's some dark science stuff right there. I'm in!

1

Chocolatefix t1_ir3z8g3 wrote

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

0

YeOldeWelshman t1_ir2bzuc wrote

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

179

FunnySynthesis t1_ir2ko0f wrote

I felt the same as you looking at these reconstructions. Its like it makes so much sense they look like us, but at the same time it really shocked me.

56

ThunderEcho100 t1_irgi4r3 wrote

Is really be interested in hearing them speak though. Even if i couldn’t understand old English etc. that would be fascinating to me.

1

spaceeeeeeeeeeeeeeee t1_ir3tmw3 wrote

The portrait of Willem van Oranje (1554) looks far more life-like and modern.

https://historiek.net/wp-content/uploads-phistor1/2016/01/Willem-van-Oranje-geschilderd-door-Anthonie-Mor-omstreeks-1554.jpg

47

Odie4Prez t1_ir51im8 wrote

.........he single? 😳

15

sevenlabors t1_ir5ehta wrote

Well... my dude here ended up with four wives, because two died, one cheated on him and had a baby with their lawyer, and the last one was only married to him for a year or two before he was shot and assassinated, sooooo...

11

Boofer2 t1_ir3bot8 wrote

I really don't get how this is surprising, there were people that looked just like me 30,000 years ago.

16

ThunderEcho100 t1_irgibj0 wrote

I don’t think it’s surprising as much as it makes you pause in awe of.

Like to the earth that was yesterday, to society. 500 years ago was a different world.

2

qwertycantread t1_ir4dz0i wrote

Read Greek and Roman literature. People are exactly the same as they have always been. Any differences are purely cosmetic.

14

wogsurfer t1_ir2aucv wrote

I've always wanted to know how they know what the length of those pegs are to be.

In saying that though, they may not actually be what I thought they were for. Anyone know?

87

TemperatureDizzy3257 t1_ir2eer6 wrote

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).

59

ScoobyDeezy t1_ir3dape wrote

Saw that on an episode of MacGuyver, I think, like 30 years ago.

8

AsherSophie t1_ir478w4 wrote

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

4

TheFatMouse t1_ir2aws6 wrote

I thought I was a grouch. Then I read the comments here. Guess I'm doing alright.

71

Civil-Secretary-2356 t1_ir2hx57 wrote

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.

71

snarton t1_ir3ba7z wrote

They actually got her mostly right. Just some smaller details are off. Like, her freckles are wrong. And her hair was lighter than that, especially in the summer. And the only time I ever saw it brushed that well was her wedding day. And her lips were never that smooth- always chapped in the winter and sunburned in the summer. She gave up trying to play the flute because of that, and took up the pipe instead. She could really get people moving with her pipe. But that's her alright- I'd recognize her anywhere.

65

loudmouth_kenzo t1_ir32ycw wrote

They did say her skull was super symmetrical, we tend to rate symmetrical features as more attractive.

44

toss_my_potatoes t1_ir400rz wrote

Agreed. Her eyebrows are also way too neat.

3

wheatgrass_feetgrass t1_ir4b0e2 wrote

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!

13

Tiny_Rat t1_ir4jwu8 wrote

People made tweezers to pluck body hair as early as ancient Greece. Cosmetic grooming is much older than you think.

12

eabred t1_ir4b54l wrote

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

2

goatamon t1_ir5p32z wrote

How do you know what they really looked like?

1

Civil-Secretary-2356 t1_ir5qnve wrote

Eh? Nowhere in my post did I say I know what they looked like. I said I suspect, emphasis on suspect, these faces are often made to look better than they really were. I'm assuming here that hair upkeep was worse back in the day, same with skin and teeth care. Add a bit of tough physical labour & childbirth and you could have a very different specimen than we see in the image. Sure, this lady may really have had the handsome looks of a daytime TV soap opera actress we see portrayed but I suspect(that word again) she did not.

Edit: plus, it's Scotland. We ain't as a rule very good looking.

1

Twinstarrider t1_ir2aacj wrote

TDIL: Julia Roberts is a medieval Scottish person.

32

[deleted] t1_ir2bpsk wrote

[deleted]

30

l_ally t1_ir2o49n wrote

I got closer to Brit Marling. There’s an actress I feel I’m forgetting who might look even more similar.

4

GronakHD t1_ir2vaia wrote

I didn't know any of these actresses, can confirm Brit Marling looks closest

4

Rivy77 t1_ir2jo94 wrote

I love facial reconstructions, it just is that strong reminder that these people were once living and it just makes it all that more personal

22

Sad-Information-4713 t1_ir2deee wrote

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

19

oeiei t1_ir2j2js wrote

Really annoying how these facial reconstructions always look like they're wearing a bit of well applied makeup, especially around the eyes.

Actually these people would appear prematurely aged to us, unless it's a kid or very young teen.

Cheers to the pro-makeup downvoter...

18

socratessue t1_ir3wrw6 wrote

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

13

levinthereturn t1_ir2061c wrote

I never understood what is the point of these "facial reconstruction". I mean they're Homo Sapiens like us, it's not like they had different looks. Do they have a scientific value?

5

Euphoric-Carry1725 t1_ir2351x wrote

They had different diets and quality of life. They also mostly lived in a monoculture.

26

Tria821 t1_ir28fla wrote

Forensic reconstruction help in modern day murder cases. We can practice on old skulls, 'humanizing' bones, to draw the interests of modern man. On the pathology side, we learn a lot from studying the remains of even the recently dead all the way through early humans to see how diseases mutated, how/if they were treated back then, and to learn how a disease might progress without having to leave current patients to suffer for research.

24

silverob t1_ir2bsnn wrote

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.

12

vengefulbeavergod t1_ir2fq79 wrote

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

10

satinsateensaltine t1_ir3b9m3 wrote

That was just some really freaky predictive art. Absolutely flooring how the artist rightly assumed his aging process.

2

vengefulbeavergod t1_ir461jh wrote

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

3

Ed_Ironsides t1_ir23fac wrote

Scientific value? What do we get out of researching anything from the past? The main drive for archaeology is just curiosity.

21

levinthereturn t1_ir25zd9 wrote

You're right, let me rephrase: do we learn something from this reconstructions, are they useful for historical research?

I'm not arguing against this thing, I'm genuinely curious.

0

Derrick_Mur t1_ir24au0 wrote

Generically, humans do tend to have the same appearance features, but there’s variety at the level of specifics, especially when considering geographic location. For example, Subsaharan Africans, East Asians, and Western Europeans share a lot of facial features, but there is also notable differences as well. The same holds for people in the past. In that regard, these things give us a better grasp of specific features that were commonly exhibited in a given place and in a given time frame

21

BlueString94 t1_ir2f7kl wrote

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.

11

socratessue t1_ir3x8zs wrote

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

2

Roboport t1_ir2yyil wrote

Humanizing history is a great way to get people interested in history. Mostly taught through events and "great people" it can be easy to forget the normal people.

9

DarkstarInfinity2020 t1_ir3gs8g wrote

Pretty sure it was artistic choice rather than morphologic destiny to give the two religious such dour scowls. Bones don’t scowl.

5

ScoutWrangler05 t1_ir2n4sf wrote

Wait, how did the woman get IG lips but the guys look like toothless hicks?

4

goldendreamseeker t1_ir2edyi wrote

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

3

nucumber t1_ir2iwl7 wrote

cleft palate

used to be fairly common, or at least not uncommon but now it's taken care of with surgery.

i'm an old fart (68) but back when I was a kid there was mean spirited snark about "hare lips" (the cleft palate lip gap looks like a rabbit's) but i wasn't sure what it was about bcuz i didn't know of anyone who had one.

17

RNnoturwaitress t1_ir5v5ya wrote

That's a cleft lip, not a cleft palate. He may also have had a cleft palate, but we can't tell based on this picture.

2

NiceButOdd t1_ir2j6od wrote

If it wasn’t for the article stating the origin of these people, they could have been someone from almost anywhere in Britain. It’s incredibly interesting to see the faces of people who lived so long ago, and try to imagine what they had seen and experienced.

3

mighty_manonin t1_ir4eraa wrote

Missing: Infected eyes from smoke, blemishes, scars from pox, zits... I know that many medieval people were cleaner than we think but not THAT clean...

3

Cyber_punq t1_ir30g7l wrote

I wonder what ancient people would think if they knew we would be ressurrecting their features like this

2

MundanePlantain1 t1_ir3amq4 wrote

That young woman played state level tennis for my secondary school. I think she got a degree in marketing and worked for a bank. Married a Dr. Good for you Jessica, you did well.

2

felixlightner t1_ir3jiyo wrote

They all resemble Mike Myers. If you don't see it your eyes are crap!!!!

2

Carma-Erynna t1_ir4e6y4 wrote

Would have been nice to see the video. I got a couple second of the woman smiling interrupted by a 30 second unskippable ad every second, LITERALLY.

2

Shankar_0 t1_ir59q10 wrote

I feel like the artists do a great job of making the abstract concept of "your skull has a lot to do with how you look"; but they want to make everyone prettier. I agree with the other comments that want to see this done with the skull of a known and well documented person. Let's see how accurate this really is.

2

FoolInTheDesert t1_ir5j4v1 wrote

I want to see what Nathan Fielder's guy would come up with.

2

turnip-stew t1_ir2b5te wrote

Can confirm likeness legitimacy. Source: Scottish

1

2HourCoffeeBreak t1_ir2hwca wrote

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

1

Tiny_Rat t1_ir4keh6 wrote

Might not be clear from her skeleton, to be honest. Some diseases can leave traces on the bones, but most causes of death do not.

2

2HourCoffeeBreak t1_ir50r8a wrote

I just thought they might have given their theory based on where and how she was found. I’m just always curious as to what kind of life they lived.

1

stupidimagehack t1_ir2tbfg wrote

Patiently waiting for the AI animation of these people…

1

taranntula t1_ir37qwu wrote

How do they know what colour hair people had? I guess white or grey could be assumed at a certain age, but red or blonde?

1

Tiny_Rat t1_ir4kipn wrote

They can guess based on the frequency of various hair colors in the region, or sequence the DNA if they can afford it and the bones are in good condition.

2

69SadBoi69 t1_ir4h3l9 wrote

The artist here has found an excellent niche. I hope more museums do this, with care

1

ArmiesOfArda t1_ir5tdwf wrote

Pretty sure I seen them in the pub last weekend

1

LordSneeze t1_ir5yqay wrote

Och, such a lovely lass. 9/10, will ask her father for her hand if the pox doesn’t kill me first.

My such a fierce face on the priest. 7/10, would burn witches for.

Ah, a bishop with such a stern countenance to stand against the ungodly heathens! 10/10, would go forth to die on a crusade at his command.

1

camergen t1_ir6aoxm wrote

The Bishop, I feel like he has one of those faces that could mean he’s corrupt. It’s probably just Hollywood- the higher ranking church official pretends to be chaste and godly, but uses a portion of the offering to maintain a harem or something. Bishop O’Donnell is all that a good bishop should be- in his appearances. The actions, however….much different.

1

ReptilianPope1 t1_ir65iyp wrote

Pretty much exactly what i thought they'd look like

1

liziwis t1_ir6cduk wrote

I wonder how common cleft lips were back then considering they didn’t have the technology to fix it

1

Educational_Ad_657 t1_ir6hntk wrote

I used to have a holiday home just a few miles past Whithorn and in the 90’s went to the active archaeological sites - I’ve wanted to go back for years now

1

getBusyChild t1_irrs8m4 wrote

I remember this being done all the time in the 90's then it simply stopped. One would think that with the advent of 3D printing it would come back with a vengeance. Wish it would.

1

Unhappy-Professor-88 t1_isly6t3 wrote

Yup. I’d have known that priest were Scotsman, even if he were mute when I bumped into him in a rain forest in South America.

She’s really beautiful. Which is not usually what I think when I look at women in medieval paintings - maybe it’s their hair, just the changing standards of beauty down the ages or their style & clothes? Regardless, it is rare, even of paintings of women who were known to be “beauties” at the time.

This woman must surely have been considered particularly attractive, even back then?

1

icelandicvader t1_ir4kqvf wrote

Europeans today and then are almost a different race

0

Digital_loop t1_ir2vy8k wrote

"reconstructions"... Like we could ever truly know what they looked like anyway!

−2

Spinningwoman t1_ir1tzci wrote

So why do they choose those facial expressions? Why make the woman look worried and fearful and the two men look grumpy and unpleasant? Did people in history not smile?

−8

AUniquePerspective t1_ir2054r wrote

Did you read the article? I'm pretty sure the still images that accompany the article are the AI's idea of neutral expressions. The article talks about animations including smiling.

12

Spinningwoman t1_ir25q8e wrote

Do they look neutral to you?

−8

AUniquePerspective t1_ir27rii wrote

Define neutral. The definition used here probably relates to relaxation of the facial muscles. (Rather than an emotional midpoint between depression and elation)

8

regular_reddit-user t1_ir26gsq wrote

Can be, I look sad when I have a neutral facial expression for example

7

Spinningwoman t1_ir29fgf wrote

Yes, but my point is why do they choose such very different ‘neutral’ expressions for the men and the woman?

−8

Tria821 t1_ir28pcb wrote

Have you never heard the phrase "resting b!+@h face"? A lot of folks resting expression is less than friendly.

7

TA_faq43 t1_ir1ulrr wrote

Yeah, it was kinda odd on the facial expressions. Although the whole headline sound like a joke - a woman, a priest, and a bishop walk into a bar…

0

paktsardines t1_ir2ue24 wrote

Not very lifelike. Way too good looking to be a Scottish woman.

−9

Infamous-Bag-3880 t1_ir1we4u wrote

I doubt that she had much to smile about. Presentism is rife. We're quite smug with our modern judgments.

−13

satinsateensaltine t1_ir3bmgf wrote

That's a pretty presentist* view of historical people. Every historical group has lived on a microscale. There would be daily things that would make you laugh, cry, rage. Even the poorest would smile when their baby did something silly during dinner time. There's plenty of art and written heritage that proves this.

Edit: changed modernist to presentist.

19

leicanthrope t1_ir3netu wrote

> Presentism is rife. We're quite smug with our modern judgments.

...and you provided a nice example of it.

You're assuming that she's basing her happiness on a modern scale. If being a medieval peasant is all she knows, that's going to frame her perceptions.

14