Actually, the artistic license taken by the archaeologist was more along the lines of the depth of wrinkles, skin coloration and so on. What she almost certainly did not do is attempt to give the model any sort of expression. Models such as these are simply extrapolations from the skeletal data, either built up by hand through the use of clay, or computer-generated as this one is. It is not the place of the scientist/technician to give it any 'spark of life' as you put it.

In fact, most of the artistic choices that were taken for this model used the painting as a direct reference - you can see this most clearly in the skin coloration, as it is almost a direct lift of the portrait.

All this is completely ignoring operaguy's bigoted assumption that anyone who looks like an idiot, is an idiot, and no-one who create works of beauty and genius could possibly look at all bemused or less than fully aware. Rather than attacking people for creating expressions that they never chose, or because we perceive the aesthetics of a given look to have certain connotations, how about learning a little more about the technology and science behind the subject before offering your 'educated' diatribes?

JonTheCelt