4 ms·

I'm skeptical. Is this kind of facial reconstruction from a skull legit? Or is it pseudoscience?

quantified 8mo ago
I'm not sure about how much we know of musculature and fat layers of neanderthals. Working from skeletons of non-humans can be really fraught.
- goodJobWalrus 8mo ago
  Neanderthals are humans.
  - Beestie 8mo ago
    Neanderthals are a distinct species. If "human" in the context you are using it is confined to Homo sapiens then no, Neanderthals are not human. If your definition of human is anything in the genus homo then yes, Neanderthals are human.
    - ASalazarMX 8mo ago
      Neanderthals are considered archaich humans, they were humans. Homo sapiens are modern humans. I guess it can be argued that early archaich humans can barely be considered humans, but neanderthals were close enough to sapiens to interbred.
    - BigTTYGothGF 8mo ago
      > Neanderthals are a distinct species "Species" and "genus" are human (hey-o) concepts that we impose on the natural world to try and understand it, and ultimately this depends on who you ask.
prox 8mo ago
It’s legit in the sense that they use this originally in forensics to reconstruct faces I think , say a victim or unknown so they can put out a search pamphlet. They know the relative muscular thickness for each area as to compile a likeness. Is it 100% a look-a-like? Probably not, but the main features and composition should be comparable to the original face.
deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
thangalin 8mo ago
> Is this kind of facial reconstruction from a skull legit? What did you search for when you tried to verify this yourself? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klxUyd3CgrE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klxUyd3CgrE Aside, a similar approach was used in a MacGyver episode nearly 40 years ago ("The Secret of Parker House"): https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0638792/mediaviewer/rm1193210369/?ref_=tt_ph_1_2 https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0638792/mediaviewer/rm119321036...
- stronglikedan 8mo ago
  > What did you search for when you tried to verify this yourself? That's quite the assumption, considering most people here would trust HN users here over a google search, understandably.
- amanaplanacanal 8mo ago
  I did check the Wikipedia article, and they have an example of a reconstruction next to an actual photograph, and to my eye they looked nothing alike.
ethanrutherford 8mo ago
I'm not sure what would be "pseudo-science" about it, but it is as legit as it can be. Reconstruction of a face from a skull is possible, but the goal is not to create an image that's indistinguishable from a hypothetical photograph of the subject. Rather, the intent is to form a general idea of what people of the time period would have looked like. Facial reconstruction is guided by current understanding of anatomy, musculature, aging processes, etc. Muscles and skin are attached to the skull based on modern human and primate anatomy, so what we get is a plausible representation of what someone with this exact skull shape may have looked like. Like with the dinosaurs, we cannot be 100% certain what the superficial exterior features looked like exactly. But, unlike with the dinosaurs, we know neanderthals are very closely related to modern humans, so we have a much more reasonable base to start from, as we can assume their facial muscles, skin, hair etc. would be similar to humans, but with different proportions. Plenty of real science goes into the process.

I'm not sure about how much we know of musculature and fat layers of neanderthals. Working from skeletons of non-humans can be really fraught.

goodJobWalrus 8mo ago
Neanderthals are humans.
- Beestie 8mo ago
  Neanderthals are a distinct species. If "human" in the context you are using it is confined to Homo sapiens then no, Neanderthals are not human. If your definition of human is anything in the genus homo then yes, Neanderthals are human.
  - ASalazarMX 8mo ago
    Neanderthals are considered archaich humans, they were humans. Homo sapiens are modern humans. I guess it can be argued that early archaich humans can barely be considered humans, but neanderthals were close enough to sapiens to interbred.
  - BigTTYGothGF 8mo ago
    > Neanderthals are a distinct species "Species" and "genus" are human (hey-o) concepts that we impose on the natural world to try and understand it, and ultimately this depends on who you ask.

prox 8mo ago

It’s legit in the sense that they use this originally in forensics to reconstruct faces I think , say a victim or unknown so they can put out a search pamphlet. They know the relative muscular thickness for each area as to compile a likeness. Is it 100% a look-a-like? Probably not, but the main features and composition should be comparable to the original face.

deleted 8mo ago

[deleted]

thangalin 8mo ago

> Is this kind of facial reconstruction from a skull legit? What did you search for when you tried to verify this yourself? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klxUyd3CgrE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klxUyd3CgrE Aside, a similar approach was used in a MacGyver episode nearly 40 years ago ("The Secret of Parker House"): https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0638792/mediaviewer/rm1193210369/?ref_=tt_ph_1_2 https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0638792/mediaviewer/rm119321036...

stronglikedan 8mo ago
> What did you search for when you tried to verify this yourself? That's quite the assumption, considering most people here would trust HN users here over a google search, understandably.
amanaplanacanal 8mo ago
I did check the Wikipedia article, and they have an example of a reconstruction next to an actual photograph, and to my eye they looked nothing alike.

ethanrutherford 8mo ago

I'm not sure what would be "pseudo-science" about it, but it is as legit as it can be. Reconstruction of a face from a skull is possible, but the goal is not to create an image that's indistinguishable from a hypothetical photograph of the subject. Rather, the intent is to form a general idea of what people of the time period would have looked like. Facial reconstruction is guided by current understanding of anatomy, musculature, aging processes, etc. Muscles and skin are attached to the skull based on modern human and primate anatomy, so what we get is a plausible representation of what someone with this exact skull shape may have looked like. Like with the dinosaurs, we cannot be 100% certain what the superficial exterior features looked like exactly. But, unlike with the dinosaurs, we know neanderthals are very closely related to modern humans, so we have a much more reasonable base to start from, as we can assume their facial muscles, skin, hair etc. would be similar to humans, but with different proportions. Plenty of real science goes into the process.