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.
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.
oreo-cat- t1_ir5kmbq wrote
It was a penny whistle, surely?
loudmouth_kenzo t1_ir32ycw wrote
They did say her skull was super symmetrical, we tend to rate symmetrical features as more attractive.
toss_my_potatoes t1_ir400rz wrote
Agreed. Her eyebrows are also way too neat.
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!
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.
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.
Doctor_Impossible_ t1_ir633gt wrote
Cosmetic grooming has been a thing in many cultures for thousands of years.
goatamon t1_ir5p32z wrote
How do you know what they really looked like?
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.
[deleted] t1_ir4evsw wrote
[deleted]
chillum1987 t1_ir5k59c wrote
Where do to you get that assumption?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments