Facial reconstruction – anatomical art or artistic anatomy?
Although facial reconstruction is used extensively in human identification investigations with a good level of success, and is frequently applied to archaeological investigations to depict the faces of people from the more distant past, the technique receives a great deal of criticism from both science and art perspectives.
Criticism from scientists includes the contention that the technique is too subjective and heavily reliant on the artistic skill of the individual practitioner (
Suk, 1935;
Vanezis et al. 1989;
Stephan, 2005). Attempts to automate the process have been poorly received and have not been as successful in forensic investigation, whilst accuracy studies have reported extremely variable results (
Snow et al. 1970;
Helmer et al. 1989;
Haglund & Raey, 1991,
Stephan & Henneberg, 2001;
Wilkinson & Whittaker, 2002;
Wilkinson et al. 2006), and this has led to claims of unreliability and lack of reproducibility (
Stephan & Henneberg, 2001;
Stephan, 2005). This has been exacerbated by the
claims of the media and some practitioners, who state that success is dependent on uncanny intuition or psychic ability (
Maxwell, 2001;
Vaughan, 2004). On the other hand, some researchers suggest that facial reconstruction techniques are too reliant on average data and inflexible standards (
Brues, 1958) and therefore will only produce a facial type rather than a characteristic likeness (
Wilkinson, 2008).
This paper will discuss the facial reconstruction technique employed by the author, commonly known as the Manchester method – a combination method developed and taught primarily by Richard Neave (
Prag & Neave, 1997) and
Wilkinson (2004).
There is a great deal of disagreement between practitioners regarding techniques, accuracy levels and reliability. Whilst acknowledging this controversy, I will attempt to assess the procedure employed for facial reconstruction at my institution in relation to the degree of scientific process and artistic interpretation that are involved in each stage. This will enable us to establish whether the process is an artistic interpretation of anatomical structures or a depiction of anatomy using artistic skills. The conclusions are not applicable to all other facial reconstruction methods employed by forensic practitioners and it must be noted that some practitioners apply a different level of artistic interpretation.
[...]
Traditionally the nose has been considered a feature with poor levels of reconstruction accuracy and there have been many studies assessing the relationship between the configuration of the nasal tissue with the bones surrounding the nasal aperture (
Tandler, 1909;
Virchow, 1912;
Schultz, 1918;
Gerasimov, 1955;
Glanville, 1969;
Macho, 1986;
McClintock Robinson et al. 1986,
George, 1993,
Prokopec & Ubelaker, 2002;
Stephan et al. 2003).
[...]
The morphology of the mouth is an area of the face where there is more reliance on artistic interpretation.
[...]
Ear shape is also very difficult to determine. Gerasimov (1955) considered the angle of ear to be parallel to the jaw line and stated that where the mastoid processes are directed downward, the earlobe will be attached (adherent), whereas where the mastoid processes point forward, the earlobe will be free. As yet very little information regarding ear shape, size and prominence can be determined reliably and typically standard ear casts will be attached to the reconstruction, which vary in relation to size and lobe pattern only (
Wilkinson, 2004).
[...]
There is
an assumption with the use of these datasets that the individual has an average amount of fat over the surface of the face. This may or may not be true, but since it is currently impossible to determine facial fatness from the skeletal structure
[...]
Age-related changes to the face have been well documented and follow a predictable pattern
[...]
Ancient Egyptians have provided a rich source for analysis, as the
mummification process preserves (with some modification) the soft tissues of the face as well as the skeletal material.
[...]
Often the assessment of mummified soft tissues will reveal details of facial morphology that cannot be determined from the skeleton alone (
Fig. 9A), increasing the reliability and reducing the artistic interpretation of the facial reconstruction.
[...]
The facial appearance of
bog bodies has been of great interest since the earliest discoveries, as the soft tissues are preserved by the acidity of the peat bog environment (
Asingh & Lynnerup, 2007).
[...]
Conclusions
Sculptural skills are clearly useful when reconstructing the musculature of the face, but where anatomical accuracy is achieved the reconstruction process should involve no artistic interpretation and the procedure is reproducible. Determination of facial feature morphology should follow scientific procedure, except for the lips and ears, which require a degree of artistic interpretation. The skin layer in a child or young adult can be determined relatively reliably, but the degree of artistic interpretation of surface texture increases with increasing adult age
. More artistic licence may be appropriate in archaeological reconstructions than in a forensic investigation, as recognition of the face is rarely the primary objective and producing the most likely depiction may be more important than individual identity. Some archaeological investigations may provide additional facial appearance information from preserved soft tissues, portraits or pathological conditions.