There are artists who take a skull and build clay on it to reconstruct what the person whose skull it was looked like (to ID an unidentified murder victim or similar).
How does that artist know what to make the nose look like? Is there anything about the underlying structure of the skull that indicates how much cartilege was in the nose, and how it was shaped?
While you can’t tell the form of the cartilage exactly, the size, shape, and thickness of the nasal bones are correlated with this. The form of these bones will provide guidance to the size and shape of the nose.
You might enjoy these clips.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VF1cVAb0J2Q - How it’s made. Forensic facial reconstruction
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_HaJT7OVIQ&NR=1 - Forensic Facial Reconstruction
ON the topic of “If you could change careers to anything at all, what would it be?”, I’d like to change my answer. That’s freakin’ fascinating.
I have seen several reconstructions and the video that shows how it was done. But I suspect there is more art to this than science. Someone should give identical skull samples and data to several different, equally competent reconstructors who then work without knowledge of the others, and compare the results. My guess is they wouldn’t look enough to even be siblings, but we won’t know if we don’t try.
An even better test might be to take the skull of someone who died recently and for whom we have pictures or a life mask, but a person unknown to the artist. Then compare the results with the known quantity.
I’d volunteer my skull as long as you can wait until I no longer need it.
Meanwhile, I’m taking all reconstructions with a grain of salt. Or two.
Cool – I’m at work, will look at these later.
Actually, I’d been thinking about both of those points before writing the OP. It would, indeed, be very interesting – surprising no one has run such a test. Or do you think the people who do the sculptures would be reluctant to participant, lest they be debunked?
I suppose so; it might case doubt on their lofty ideas and elevated status. Since that kind of work is usually very expensive, it would take a researcher with deep pockets to afford multiple reconstructions.
Then you’d have the also-subjective evaluations. How close are they?
There are examples of forensic facial reconstructions we can compare with the photographs of the decedents after their identities are discovered. I think most forensic reconstruction artists would be perfectly up front that there has to be a certain amount of speculation and guesswork to the process because there are certain things about the face that just can’t be told by bone structure, so the goal has to be to create more a resemblance that somebody may recognize rather than a photographic likeness. Here’s an example of a 3d facial reconstruction compared with a photo of the victim - the eyes, cheeks and forehead are sort of close, the nose and lips less so.
Decades-old Murder Victim Finally Identified
This sculpture doesn’t look too much like this woman, Goldie Thornsberry (another photo) partly because her killers pulled her teeth out, but it looked enough like her that a neighbor who saw the picture was able to identify her and help police find her killers.
I’d say that the first photo resembles the reconstruction not at all, but the second has some similarities (chin out, mouth in). But we aren’t picking them out of an impartial, random lineup, either. We know what to expect and what to look for and we have nothing else to compare it to.
I suspect the neighbor was comparing the sculpture to only her acquaintances who were missing, not everyone she knew. Another source of bias favorable to the artist.
With the fleshier features of the face, your probably correct to be skeptical. But there are lots of features that are more predictable, as they’re normally only covered by a thin layer of skin and flesh. Particularly the forehead, brow ridge, bridge of the nose, cheekbones, temples, and jaw line. If you get those features right, even if you get everything else wrong (ears, tip of nose, cheeks, neck) you can create a usable reconstruction.
But the tests you propose would certainly be very useful…
Of course - that’s all the reconstruction has to do, remind the viewer of somebody they know who’s gone missing. If it can connect a name with a body, it’s done its job.
It’s something of a last ditch effort, of course - all other methods of identifying the body have turned up nothing. They start with the higher percentage shots.
I realize on rereading I kind of ran two separate stories together - this one is about another woman and another reconstruction. If you click on the photo of the reconstruction you can also see a photo of the deceased, Dorothy Gay Howard.
In that case, it doesn’t have to be too accurate, if the possible comparison pool is small. But for reconstruction of cave men, it is probably a lot more speculative.
