I always see articles of anthropologist finding bones from a long time ago (prehistoric) And through research they end up with super detailed description of the kind of lives they lived, what they ate, what they might had worked at, and even how they looked. What I am most curious is about the visual renditions. Even more recently with Egypt renditions.
In: 2
They rarely know for certain, even if the information is presented to us that way. They derive their information from the physical evidence.
So they could look at the teeth and see very little decay but lots of wear. And they could derive that the person ate a diet that was not rich in sugar but was rich in grains. Or if the teeth were not as worn as they might expect for a person of that age they might derive that grain was not a large part of their diet and that the person mostly ate something softer.
As for what a person might have looked like, that can be done by reconstructing the tissue of the face. Things like where tendons attach to bone can be used to derive the shape of the muscles, which in turn influence the shape of the face. But they’re not making a definitive or exact reconstruction. They’re going to use their best educated guess, based on what they know about musculature and so on. [This video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bJB4H64Nao) shows the process.
A persons employment can be derived from their bones too. Someone who sat all day is going to have different wear on their joints than someone who was standing. Someone who was working with heavy weights might have damage or wear in their back. Someone who weaved or sewed might have damage or wear on their hands.
That kind of stuff.
Latest Answers