Angela
13-12-16, 01:30
This is an article on it. He apparently was decapitated.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4017852/Back-dead-Haunting-reconstruction-lets-look-eyes-Neolithic-man-beheaded-9-500-years-ago.html
All the usual caveats apply that all such reconstructions should be taken with a grain of salt. In this case that goes double or more as the head was bound in childhood to broaden it both on top and in the back, so we don't know the original shape, and the jaw was missing, so it's unclear to me how accurate that and the mouth can be. Also, the nose looks rather short given the other skulls from Jericho.
(Click to enlarge.)
8275
That said, he's certainly within the modern range of West Eurasian variation, in my opinion, and they've given him a very natural and "human" look.
8276
This is another skull from Jericho. It seems quite different.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/8e/7d/41/8e7d41300859814870c1e18958e1789d.jpg
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4017852/Back-dead-Haunting-reconstruction-lets-look-eyes-Neolithic-man-beheaded-9-500-years-ago.html
All the usual caveats apply that all such reconstructions should be taken with a grain of salt. In this case that goes double or more as the head was bound in childhood to broaden it both on top and in the back, so we don't know the original shape, and the jaw was missing, so it's unclear to me how accurate that and the mouth can be. Also, the nose looks rather short given the other skulls from Jericho.
(Click to enlarge.)
8275
That said, he's certainly within the modern range of West Eurasian variation, in my opinion, and they've given him a very natural and "human" look.
8276
This is another skull from Jericho. It seems quite different.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/8e/7d/41/8e7d41300859814870c1e18958e1789d.jpg