High fashion models aren’t meant to be facially attractive. That’s what Victoria secret is for. High fashion requires a body as canvas (so be very very thin). A fierce look and walk.
Yeah, one thing I've learned about human genetics is that the markers for skin color are wonky and unpredictable.
I just feel like it'd be safer to assume she was a lot darker given the recency of African diaspora, but again I am far from an expert so I could be totally off.
“A wizard is never late, nor is she early, she arrives preci…”
Oh shut up Helen, you knew I was going to wear my leopard print and you wore yours today just so I would look like I’m copying you! Our friendship is so over!
It’s been a while since I’ve studied it, but IIRC skeletons of early humans show in general more traits we view as masculine, like stronger chins and a more jutting brow line, even in female skeletons. It was even more pronounced in male skeletons, but this is still pretty mild sexual dimorphism even among great apes (think male vs female gorillas, for example).
Though, even being 9000, they would still be considered a "modern" human, correct? Having evolved roughly 300k years ago, I would think their traits would be far more similar to our own then "early" versions of our species
Early might not be the right word, I think I’m mixing it up with pre-agricultural hunter gatherers (I think I’m forgetting a term here, but it’s hot and I’m tired).
Also it seems to have taken a bit for human ethnicities and morphology to stabilize. We absorbed a lot of other humans in Africa to the point that it unironically messed up a lot of early data cause early scientists didn't think fucked to extinction was a valid form of human expansion.
this feels like one of those shrink wrapped dinosaur situations. like they arent doing a good job estimating how her soft tissue would have been distributed at all. why are her eyebrows so low, why are her cheeks so lean, why is there so much tissue below her lips, why is her hairline so high and with a bit of a widows peak? it feels like they put a mans tissue distribution on a womans frame completely uncritically and called it good.
edit: i think the harsh drop lighting theyre displaying this under is making it way worse too. it might not look quite as bad with softer more diffuse lighting.
Yeah this looks completely wrong to me... Like sure, they would look very different, but they wouldn't be indistinguishable from men. Even from an evolutionary perspective that's just silly.
Even today we have women that have "facial bone structures we associate with masculinity" as they describe. It's not like we are working blind and trying to reconstruct a dinosaur or an extraterrestrial. Though maybe for some scientists, women are similarly rare.
I looked up some examples of "masculine women faces" online in 2 minutes. Even though they look "masculine", they clearly don't look like Gigachad or whatever this reconstruction is.
I can actually see Myself in a romantic/queerplatonic, non-physical relationship with a bi man. But not a straight or exclusively gay man. I went on a date with a man once, we both had a good time.
Yeah, it’s that old “Cleopatra lived closer to modern day than the building of the pyramids. Ancient Egypt had archeologists who studied ancient Egypt” thing.
This guy right here, his name is Ötzi. He died around his 50s. 5000 years ago. In the high Alpes. No, not due to old age. He was actually murdered. He was not considered ancient, just old. It's speculated he was already crippled due to past wounds - both fresh and old, and yet he was fine and rocking at the altitude of over 3000 meters... until someone penetrated him with an arrow.
No that isn't a counterargument to your theory, as a single special example is never enough to discard any statement. I don't need to, because it's already well documented how wrong this perception of aging is. I just want to show you just how durable people were even in the truly ancient times.
There are several historic persons which lived more than 80 Years. The people then was genetically identic to the people today and with the same life expentancy, same as today, this depends naturally on their life style. The average lifespan of the people in WWI also was less than 30 Years.
Wrong, in those years people also reached the age of today's people. The myth that they had a lower lifespan was due to the high mortality of newborns and a violent society that lowered the average general age.
The name Pelasgians (Ancient Greek: Πελασγοί, romanized: Pelasgoí, singular: Πελασγός Pelasgós) was used by Classical Greek writers to refer either to the predecessors of the Greeks, or to all the inhabitants of Greece before the emergence of the Greeks. In general, "Pelasgian" has come to mean more broadly all the indigenous inhabitants of the Aegean Sea region and their cultures.
It depends on what you mean by "existed". They're the ancestors of Greeks, and they lived in what is now Greece, but didn't call themselves that name. As a Greek, to me they're "Greek by ascent", so the distinction is a bit trivial.
Well it would be like calling native Americans 'New Yorkers' because they lived in the same area. There was definitely no New York and no Greece back then so makes no sense to call them that.
The analogy isn't quite right. It's more like, hypothetically, if those native people were left relatively undisturbed and not displaced. Then, hundreds of years later, their descendents are now a large proportion of New York. I would probably call them New Yorkers, yes. I don't know much about Native American history, so let me know if I'm off the mark somewhere here.
I say "relatively" because Greek people had a lot of… let's say… neighbourly troubles, and it got very "complicated" for a long time. But we still call the people living there Greek, even if their bloodline DNA is very mixed bag now. I did an Ancestry thing out of curiosity, so I should know, even though my family and I are 100% born there.
I'd say the analogy is good. We can look at other countries. There was a time when Rome was all over Europe. But we aren't going to call the Romans in present day England the English? There's hundreds of years of breeding taking place with Saxons, celts, norse, etc.
I'll raise a counterpoint then: how many independent countries are now known as "China"? The difference is that the Roman Empire fell apart, and everyone kind of reverted to their original culture or became something new. Same thing happened in Greece after the centuries-long Turkish occupation and war crimes complicated events.
The analogy is very messy now and it doesn't make sense anymore ^😂^. But I guess the end result is that it's not so simple at which point one nation ends and another begins. Real history is messy and once you actually look into it, it's not a simple thing at all.
In the first place "Greece" wasn't even one thing, it was a messy collection of city-states and alliances that kind of got along sometimes. I think many places in the world was like that back then, actually. Then Alexander the Great happened and a lot of the world was Greece. Then it wasn't. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
So yeah. You can make things as complicated or as simple as you feel like.
Level 1 complicated: it's a 9000 year old ancient Greek skeleton
Level 2: it's an ancient skeleton found in what is now known as Greece
Level 3: it's a Pelasgian skeleton
I wouldn't call level 1 "incorrect". I would call it "simplified". People who know Greece didn't exist 9000 years ago will already know the truth. Everyone else won't really care. But I know many people here on Lemmy are "semantics enthusiasts".
it's a 9000 year old ancient Greek ancestor skeleton would be correct. I get the triviality of arguing over semantics, but this is a science post where the semantics do actually matter, even if they are adjacent to the actual thing
Details matter. Especially if were going to talk about a reconstruction of a person from a given time period. That 9000k old recreation of a teenager isn't going to look anything like an actual teenager from ancient Greece.
When historians and scientists show recreations of the cavemen in Lascaux cave, they aren't wearing berets, eating baguettes, and no one refers to them as 20k year old French people.
Here we go again with the random shitting on the Greeks.
Bet the girls in England looked way better than this 9000 years ago, nothing like cro magnon apes no no they didn't eat fleas out of each other's backs where'd you hear that
I've noticed a trend lately - not sure how far back this goes - but it appears to me that aspects of the Greek civilization are very often attributed to the Romans and mentions of the Greeks are often reduced to derogatory memes (like how easy it is to be Socrates because there was only a bunch of people alive at the time and other such bs) and of course let's not forget how gay everyone was (as if that's a bad thing but whatever).
Couple that with misconceptions about Alexander the great and how he was supposedly a Slav and Macedonias weren't Greek blah blah, the fact that the Turks are trying to claim that everything that now lies in modern day Turkey is "theirs" etc etc, the claims from Christians around the world that Christian ideas are the basis of the western civilization and morality in general as if they didn't just appropriate everything from past religions and belief systems... Anyway rant over.
Hah I'm not worried mate it's all good, I just find it interesting how certain interest groups can change narratives from one day to the next.
Btw this misrepresentation extends to all the non-English speaking peoples, who are basically excluded from the internet.
98 replies
Why such a high hairline!?
Today, some women have very masculine features. You can find some of them on fashion show runways, for whatever reason.
This, by chance, is a skull with such features. This doesn't mean all women then had masculine features, the same way not all women today do.
Or maybe the scientist just sucks at portraits
High fashion models aren’t meant to be facially attractive. That’s what Victoria secret is for. High fashion requires a body as canvas (so be very very thin). A fierce look and walk.
This is what the Trojan War was fought over
The face that launched a thousand ships.... away from it.
Does group perception of beauty change over time?
I'm no anthropologist but wouldn't her skin be a lot darker? This feels like people making depictions of Jesus look like a modern European person.
Yeah, one thing I've learned about human genetics is that the markers for skin color are wonky and unpredictable.
I just feel like it'd be safer to assume she was a lot darker given the recency of African diaspora, but again I am far from an expert so I could be totally off.
Anyway, how is your sex life?
You’re my favorite customer!
Are we sure its not Danzig?
"Oh hi Mark" just makes me think of Severance and there's no way Patricia Arquette looks like this!
This is Andrew W.K…
No, I'm certain it's John Travolta from Battlefield Earth.
No, no, John Travolta wasn't from Battlefield Earth, you're thinking of Keanu Reeves. John Travolta is from The Matrix.
9000 is a really fucking old teenager.
That's like being Gandalf of all teenagers.
“A wizard is never late, nor is she early, she arrives preci…”
Oh shut up Helen, you knew I was going to wear my leopard print and you wore yours today just so I would look like I’m copying you! Our friendship is so over!
Is was leopard skin back then.
They rounded down, she's actually 9017 years old.
Just so Republicans can feel it's okay to want to rape her.
and she looks really good for 9000
I think someone mixed up the storage, and they accidentally recreated John Travolta from the Battlefield Earth movie?
This is from the movie about the making of Battlefield Earth with John Travolta played by Val Kilmer
It’s been a while since I’ve studied it, but IIRC skeletons of early humans show in general more traits we view as masculine, like stronger chins and a more jutting brow line, even in female skeletons. It was even more pronounced in male skeletons, but this is still pretty mild sexual dimorphism even among great apes (think male vs female gorillas, for example).
Though, even being 9000, they would still be considered a "modern" human, correct? Having evolved roughly 300k years ago, I would think their traits would be far more similar to our own then "early" versions of our species
Early might not be the right word, I think I’m mixing it up with pre-agricultural hunter gatherers (I think I’m forgetting a term here, but it’s hot and I’m tired).
Yeah but we started fucking Neanderthals way later and there were plenty of inbred diasporas with little outside contact.
Also it seems to have taken a bit for human ethnicities and morphology to stabilize. We absorbed a lot of other humans in Africa to the point that it unironically messed up a lot of early data cause early scientists didn't think fucked to extinction was a valid form of human expansion.
Why did you have to remind me?
I hear you, I had blissfully forgotten all about that.
SIX fingers...
If anyone missed the RiffTrax version of that movie it is one of the better ones. You can still find it on the privateer gulf.
First thing I saw
this feels like one of those shrink wrapped dinosaur situations. like they arent doing a good job estimating how her soft tissue would have been distributed at all. why are her eyebrows so low, why are her cheeks so lean, why is there so much tissue below her lips, why is her hairline so high and with a bit of a widows peak? it feels like they put a mans tissue distribution on a womans frame completely uncritically and called it good.
edit: i think the harsh drop lighting theyre displaying this under is making it way worse too. it might not look quite as bad with softer more diffuse lighting.
Yeah this looks completely wrong to me... Like sure, they would look very different, but they wouldn't be indistinguishable from men. Even from an evolutionary perspective that's just silly.
Even today we have women that have "facial bone structures we associate with masculinity" as they describe. It's not like we are working blind and trying to reconstruct a dinosaur or an extraterrestrial. Though maybe for some scientists, women are similarly rare.
I looked up some examples of "masculine women faces" online in 2 minutes. Even though they look "masculine", they clearly don't look like Gigachad or whatever this reconstruction is.
::: spoiler example photos
:::
All three are beautiful. And in other news, I'm a gay enby.
I'm a sidelined former passionate Ally, can you explain to me how an enby can be "gay" and not "pan?"
I'm not into men, and I'm less into women than I am into enbies close to My gender. There are plenty of enby genders I'm not into, too.
Ah okay that makes sense.
I can actually see Myself in a romantic/queerplatonic, non-physical relationship with a bi man. But not a straight or exclusively gay man. I went on a date with a man once, we both had a good time.
IKnowSomeOfTheseWords.goodburger
well they always taught us in history class how greece was the hi mark of ancient culture.
slow clap
Funny, if you cut the hair I'd say it's Val Kilmer.
If you don’t cut the hair it’s Madmartigan.
And if you give her a normal hairline she might resemble a teenager
Idk about this team tbh. Avgi is certainly not impressed.
They should have stopped at Bottom middle, the one between Special Agent Albert Rosenberg and guy in bar bathroom that wants to fight his reflection.
Did Carrot Top forget to take his thyroid medication again?
No no, that's Simply Red after a full-blown bender. He just hasn't got to his hairbrush yet.
All the cast of Odyssey should look like this
The Odyssey is much, much closer to now than to 9000 years ago
Yeah, it’s that old “Cleopatra lived closer to modern day than the building of the pyramids. Ancient Egypt had archeologists who studied ancient Egypt” thing.
That's still very odd to think about
Is this mislabeled for comedy purposes? Or was that the genuine reconstruction aim?
40% Heath Ledger 40% Val Kilmer 20% Rocky Dennis
You're tearing me apart Lisa!
I did naht hit her!
You're tearing me apart
Lisa!Holy Roman Empire!Mother
Tell your children not to walk my way
Tell your children not to hear my words
What they mean
What they say
Mother
Yeah i can see that a little bit too
If this is a teenage girl, how the hell the grown up men looked like? I mean my masculinity is already hurt by this image alone.
not to long ago you were "ancient" with 40
This guy right here, his name is Ötzi. He died around his 50s. 5000 years ago. In the high Alpes. No, not due to old age. He was actually murdered. He was not considered ancient, just old. It's speculated he was already crippled due to past wounds - both fresh and old, and yet he was fine and rocking at the altitude of over 3000 meters... until someone penetrated him with an arrow.
No that isn't a counterargument to your theory, as a single special example is never enough to discard any statement. I don't need to, because it's already well documented how wrong this perception of aging is. I just want to show you just how durable people were even in the truly ancient times.
Well yeah and back then everybody was ancient
There are several historic persons which lived more than 80 Years. The people then was genetically identic to the people today and with the same life expentancy, same as today, this depends naturally on their life style. The average lifespan of the people in WWI also was less than 30 Years.
Wrong, in those years people also reached the age of today's people. The myth that they had a lower lifespan was due to the high mortality of newborns and a violent society that lowered the average general age.
MTG dyed her hair?
Looks like every bass player I’ve ever known.
I feel called out
Um guys.. I don't think Greece existed 9000 years ago.
https://www.delphimuseum.gr/2025/02/greek-history.html?m=1
It depends on what you mean by "existed". They're the ancestors of Greeks, and they lived in what is now Greece, but didn't call themselves that name. As a Greek, to me they're "Greek by ascent", so the distinction is a bit trivial.
Well it would be like calling native Americans 'New Yorkers' because they lived in the same area. There was definitely no New York and no Greece back then so makes no sense to call them that.
Columbus: What a curious continent! Ahoy native person, where might I find some gold and child slaves?
Indigenous New Yorker: I'm walkin' 'ere!
That needs to be a Bill and Ted style time travel movie asap
The analogy isn't quite right. It's more like, hypothetically, if those native people were left relatively undisturbed and not displaced. Then, hundreds of years later, their descendents are now a large proportion of New York. I would probably call them New Yorkers, yes. I don't know much about Native American history, so let me know if I'm off the mark somewhere here.
I say "relatively" because Greek people had a lot of… let's say… neighbourly troubles, and it got very "complicated" for a long time. But we still call the people living there Greek, even if their bloodline DNA is very mixed bag now. I did an Ancestry thing out of curiosity, so I should know, even though my family and I are 100% born there.
I'd say the analogy is good. We can look at other countries. There was a time when Rome was all over Europe. But we aren't going to call the Romans in present day England the English? There's hundreds of years of breeding taking place with Saxons, celts, norse, etc.
I'll raise a counterpoint then: how many independent countries are now known as "China"? The difference is that the Roman Empire fell apart, and everyone kind of reverted to their original culture or became something new. Same thing happened in Greece after the
centuries-long Turkish occupation and war crimescomplicated events.The analogy is very messy now and it doesn't make sense anymore ^
😂^. But I guess the end result is that it's not so simple at which point one nation ends and another begins. Real history is messy and once you actually look into it, it's not a simple thing at all.In the first place "Greece" wasn't even one thing, it was a messy collection of city-states and alliances that kind of got along sometimes. I think many places in the world was like that back then, actually. Then Alexander the Great happened and a lot of the world was Greece. Then it wasn't.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯So yeah. You can make things as complicated or as simple as you feel like.
Level 1 complicated: it's a 9000 year old ancient Greek skeleton
Level 2: it's an ancient skeleton found in what is now known as Greece
Level 3: it's a Pelasgian skeleton
I wouldn't call level 1 "incorrect". I would call it "simplified". People who know Greece didn't exist 9000 years ago will already know the truth. Everyone else won't really care. But I know many people here on Lemmy are "semantics enthusiasts".
Level 1 is definitely wrong.
it's a 9000 year old ancient Greek ancestor skeleton would be correct. I get the triviality of arguing over semantics, but this is a science post where the semantics do actually matter, even if they are adjacent to the actual thing
Details matter. Especially if were going to talk about a reconstruction of a person from a given time period. That 9000k old recreation of a teenager isn't going to look anything like an actual teenager from ancient Greece.
When historians and scientists show recreations of the cavemen in Lascaux cave, they aren't wearing berets, eating baguettes, and no one refers to them as 20k year old French people.
I can suddenly see why you would fight a war over Cleopatra or Helen of Troy if this is the average local option.
Would
It's OK, she's actually a 9000-year-old shapeshifting dragon.
Here we go again with the random shitting on the Greeks.
Bet the girls in England looked way better than this 9000 years ago, nothing like cro magnon apes no no they didn't eat fleas out of each other's backs where'd you hear that
random shitting? so it's not related to the scientific research that was done in Greece and not in England?
I've noticed a trend lately - not sure how far back this goes - but it appears to me that aspects of the Greek civilization are very often attributed to the Romans and mentions of the Greeks are often reduced to derogatory memes (like how easy it is to be Socrates because there was only a bunch of people alive at the time and other such bs) and of course let's not forget how gay everyone was (as if that's a bad thing but whatever). Couple that with misconceptions about Alexander the great and how he was supposedly a Slav and Macedonias weren't Greek blah blah, the fact that the Turks are trying to claim that everything that now lies in modern day Turkey is "theirs" etc etc, the claims from Christians around the world that Christian ideas are the basis of the western civilization and morality in general as if they didn't just appropriate everything from past religions and belief systems... Anyway rant over.
Nice rant. Hope you're feeling better. Have a big web-hug my friend 🤗
It sounds like you need to make some lemonade pour in the ouzo and not worry about mallakas
Hah I'm not worried mate it's all good, I just find it interesting how certain interest groups can change narratives from one day to the next. Btw this misrepresentation extends to all the non-English speaking peoples, who are basically excluded from the internet.
Hair is such a big part of how people see attractiveness. Can somebody put this through a better hairstyle in a face app filter and post results?
What's her skincare routine?
Hirsute, indeed.