There is no objective right and wrong here because we don't know what ancient people actually looked like and have no way of knowing*.
Which makes your entire notion that you personally could assess whether or not something "resembles ancient people" completely ridiculous. This idea in your head that you know what ancient people look like is nonsense, its your own prejudices and assumptions about what you think they should be. That's entirely subjective. I mean seriously, you take Renaissance paintings, by artists who probably know a lot less than the EB team do about the period and its people, as persuasive sources.
*Well, we could do computer reconstruction on any skulls that survived, such as those from Pompeii, but even that is an estimate which is based on the geometries of modern faces. There's an inherent assumption there that the fundamentals of the human form are unchanged. 2500 years is a tiny flash in the 100,000 years homo sapiens has been around. It is nothing in the scheme of evolution, and thus there's no reason to assume ancient people were meaningfully different from modern ones. Thus its pretty safe to use the faces of modern people.
Bookmarks