Forensic reconstruction of a 6th c. Anglo-Saxon woman buried with a rich collection of grave woods.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/image...swalds_203.jpg
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3556716.stm
Printable View
Forensic reconstruction of a 6th c. Anglo-Saxon woman buried with a rich collection of grave woods.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/image...swalds_203.jpg
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3556716.stm
Looks more like a Neanderthal to me. :confused: Only thing worse is that Gothic princess.
Looks Russian. ;)
But really--very strange reconstruction. I'd like to see the skull itself......
Interesting, I really wouldn't know how to classify her, but I know that she would have lived in the area called Caer Gloui, which would have been predominantly Celtic at the time. She was probably living on the frontline.
http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/Featur...shMapAD550.htm
It's only natural, as Anglo-Saxon aristocracy was of Russian origin ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalton
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hors
Right, how could I forget Redwaldski? :D
It's the nostrils that make her look so primitive. But nostrils can only be guessed, as it's soft tissue not preserved in the skull. Typical Anglo-Saxon females have slender noses, so I think this reconstruction is not the most accurate ever ...
Exactly, they didn't have much to work with, just a strip of bone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Looks like they took great liberties with those, making them look as exotic as possible. That is particularly evident in the nostrils, which are almost Negroid. :rolleyes:Quote:
Some features, such as the shape of the eyes, ears and lips are based on a certain amount of educated guesswork.
They had the nasal angle. The nose was rather flattish and not protruding. It's obvious.
As for the nasal breadth, it looks they guess it from what was remains of the "pear-like" hole of the nose (now part of a larger hole), which gives the understanding of how broad was the nose.