classify this danish viking man reconstruction that i commissioned for

[Nationofsymbol]

hes from denmark, he was a low class viking warrior burried with a battle wound around his eye area




80 percent of the viking skulls on display in exhibitions or have been dug up have been massive with robust features in stark contrast to modern scandanvians, what has even happened to modern people and their narrow faces

[~Elizabeth~]

hes from denmark, he was a low class viking warrior burried with a battle wound around his eye area




80 percent of the viking skulls on display in exhibitions or have been dug up have been massive with robust features in stark contrast to modern scandanvians, what has even happened to modern people and their narrow faces

I like the middle picture the best. He is handsome.

[Nationofsymbol]

I like the middle picture the best. He is handsome.

this was the average phenotype among Scandinavians before medieval age, industrialization and increase in agriculture ruined everything now we have women rejecting 99 percent of men

[Zohor]

this was the average phenotype among Scandinavians before medieval age, industrialization and increase in agriculture ruined everything now we have women rejecting 99 percent of men

You basically know how to classify him and know what could be a reason in the shift of looks, yet you somehow decide to make a thread about it. For this reason I find no sense in classifying as you already know better.

I disagree with the second part of the post. If these looks were common, most likely some other features could be found attractive back then, people tend to make some exotic features more interesting. Not to mention around 70 years ago the scale of phenomenon of "99 percent of men being rejected"(as if it's not exagerrated even for 2024) was not an issue and the difference in looks to this specimen from OP was basically same as to people living nowadays. Please don't romaticize these days as even with some clear imperfections we are living in one of the best years of humankind.

[Nationofsymbol]

You basically know how to classify him and know what could be a reason in the shift of looks, yet you somehow decide to make a thread about it. For this reason I find no sense in classifying as you already know better.

I disagree with the second part of the post. If these looks were common, most likely some other features could be found attractive back then, people tend to make some exotic features more interesting. Not to mention around 70 years ago the scale of phenomenon of "99 percent of men being rejected"(as if it's not exagerrated even for 2024) was not an issue and the difference in looks to this specimen from OP was basically same as to people living nowadays. Please don't romaticize these days as even with some clear imperfections we are living in one of the best years of humankind.

reasons like sexual freedom for women is the most major factor here, back then women only married once due to social repercussions, now white people got more soy
its well established these looks were common back during viking age, but that doest mean that women would find something else more attractive, for example a indian male in a dominant white city would stand out but for more negative reasons, small frames, pot bellies and weak recessed jaws is not naturally appealing, but as for the rejection phenomenon, as women tend to have much more abundance and can select more in a much more picky context, they have access to thousands of men in just a single swipe, of course the 99 percent is a exaggeration but that was a simple metaphor as to how ridiculous it has gotten, the romanticisms therefore is much more warranted

A Swedish study based on 124 skulls from the 500 years preceding the seventeenth century found that the medieval skulls had somewhat smaller teeth and brain cases but larger jaws and wider dental arches than those of a modern population. 4 Other trends that have been reported include a reduction in palatal width between the Romano-British period and the nineteenth century 5, 6 and reductions in bi-zygomatic and maxillary widths between the twelfth and nineteenth centuries. 7"

i have tons of more sources as to why the past was ten times better, we need an nuclear reset

[Zohor]

reasons like sexual freedom for women is the most major factor here, back then women only married once due to social repercussions, now white people got more soy
its well established these looks were common back during viking age, but that doest mean that women would find something else more attractive, for example a indian male in a dominant white city would stand out but for more negative reasons, small frames, pot bellies and weak recessed jaws is not naturally appealing, but as for the rejection phenomenon, as women tend to have much more abundance and can select more in a much more picky context, they have access to thousands of men in just a single swipe, of course the 99 percent is a exaggeration but that was a simple metaphor as to how ridiculous it has gotten, the romanticisms therefore is much more warranted

A Swedish study based on 124 skulls from the 500 years preceding the seventeenth century found that the medieval skulls had somewhat smaller teeth and brain cases but larger jaws and wider dental arches than those of a modern population. 4 Other trends that have been reported include a reduction in palatal width between the Romano-British period and the nineteenth century 5, 6 and reductions in bi-zygomatic and maxillary widths between the twelfth and nineteenth centuries. 7"

i have tons of more sources as to why the past was ten times better, we need an nuclear reset

Hold on man
I don't deny you are right about switch of looks, your knowledge on these matters exceed min by miles. I simply don't fully get your point about attractiveness and surely not how the fact that having larger jaws makes these times better(as I assume from your post, correct me if I am wrong). Also it wouldn't cause be a reason for nuclear reset in the slightest. As it goes to much off topic, I suggest switching to Private Message if you ould like to continue a discuss, it's my last post in this thread

[Pepa]

I have the same nose but with slightly smaller nasal tip

[Avicenna]

Rasmus Hojlund is that you????

[Kess]

Faelid.

[Nationofsymbol]

Rasmus Hojlund is that you????

that guy looks 12, thank god this guy has a jaw 50 times more wider and stronger than he ever will