Even people who have lived apparently 200 years ago don't look remotely like we'd imagine people to look, not even considering different standards of beauty influencing renaissance paintings or idealized sculptures. Flat or bulky faces, enormous jaws and foreheads worthy of cartoon Martians. Strangest of all is that some reconstructions seem to vary in different periods while others stay the same over millennia.
I might trust that people 7000 years ago looked a bit weird, even 2000 years ago but 200 years ago?
If so the greatest achievement of the past 200 years would have been the development of modern beauty standards haha.
Jokes aside. It's rather confusion especially because these people are supposedly experts and their reconstructions are hailed as expert works.
Reconstruction of features from human remains -- that's the work of anthropologists and anatomists, not historians. Historians can tell you about what's in the historical record: descriptions of people, their hair, the work they might have done, the clothing they might have worn, their appearance. If someone wrote about it or left a painting of it, an historian might have something to say.
But when you get to physical remains and the work to infer the face that that skull "wore"-- that's anthropology, because its most often encountered in homicide cases, you'll find it referred to as "forensic facial reconstruction".
There's considerable controversy in such reconstructions even in present day skulls, see
Gupta, Sonia et al. “Forensic Facial Reconstruction: The Final Frontier.” Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR vol. 9,9 (2015): ZE26-8. doi:10.7860/JCDR/2015/14621.6568
. . . for an introduction to the field.
Try
r/AskAnthropology
. . . to find folks who have experience with human remains.