Facial Reconstruction of Ancient Hominids
Elroy Willis
I watched a show last night on science channel about one of the
earliest known hominid ancestors, and they had an artist who
reconstructed what she thought they might have looked like. When
she was finished, it was almost eerie to me to look into the eyes of
an ancient proto-human.
Obviously, a lot of the artwork is speculative, but just how much of
it is speculative is my question?
Has anyone ever seen one of the reconstruction artists do a
reconstruction of a modern human skull, that someone has actual
pictures of before the person died? Maybe a solved crime where they
found a human skull and the artist did a reconstruction, and then
someone recognized it, and afterward, an actual photo of the
person and the reconstructed head are shown side by side to see
how close the artist got it right?
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
Therion Ware
On the auspictious date of Tue, 04 Apr 2006 13:33:25 GMT, Elroy Willis
said unto the multitude in message-id
<bis4329vhcf33gn8i...@4ax.com>:
The ones I've seen in the papers were reasonably close, but I wonder
if that's self-selecting - do they only show the close matches?
Anyway, there's an interesting page on it here that goes into the
limitations.
http://library.thinkquest.org/04oct/00206/pti_facial_reconstruction.htm
--
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
attrib: Pauline Réage. Cine To DVD? http://www.video2cd.co.uk
Geoff
news:bis4329vhcf33gn8i...@4ax.com...
Here are a few:
http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/jan2001/phillips.htm
Ken Shaw
Crimes have been solved using what is called "forensic sculpture."
First it can allow tebtative indentification of skeletal remains. Also
the same basic concept is used to "age" a missing person or fugitive.
The Soviets pioneered the technique but the first time most americans
encountered it was when _America's Most Wanted_ showed an "aged" image
of a man who killed his entire family and then disappeared. He was
positively identified by fingerprints after a former neighbor saw the
broadcast and recognized him.
Ken
Rik Grandia
news:1144159433.0...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
There was a remarkable case of this sort in the Netherlands about two years
ago. See
(mind the wrap)
or
http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z16C257EC
--
=======================================
r.j.g...@CONFUSE-A-BOTi-groep.leidenuniv.nl
(To reply, unconfuse the 'bot).
Kevin Wayne Williams
sculptor has a lot of chances to practice, because they can work on a
skull and then compare it to photographs of the original.
Someone reconstructing an ancient hominid ancestor can use that
knowledge for reconstructing attachment points, but that only goes so
far. Coloration, hair patterns, fatty deposits, and the like are
speculation.
Think of a simple feature like the fold of an Asian's eye. I don't
believe that that has any trace in the skull, but has an impact on the
appearance of the person.
KWW
Richard Forrest
There was a fascinating example of this shown on British TV a few years
ago.
One of the archaeology programmes - "Time Team", I think - had
excavated the skeleton of an iron age man from a grave site in a small
village in Somerset. It was sent off to a laboratory in Manchester,
where a facial reconstruction was made, and from this a model of the
head.
This was unveiled to a gathering of the people of the village. When the
head was held up for the audience to see, there was a shout from the
back of the hall "It's John!"
John, a local farmer whose family had lived in the village since time
immemorial was at the meeting, and when his features were compared to
those of the reconstruction, the similarity was striking. They could
have been brothers.
A striking testament to the skills of the scientists and artists who
carried out the reconstruction, and an amazing insight into how long
some families had lived in the area. John's farm was only a few hundred
yards from site where his ancestor was buried over two thousand years
earlier.
RF
J. J. Lodder
Sure, but you should keep in mind
that for anatomically modern humans
it is known how much muscle and fat to apply.
For earlier models no such calibration is possible,
so the results may well be less reliable.
Best,
Jan
Woland
Elroy Willis wrote:
<snip>
When I was in Alaska last year I went to a lecture given by a forensic
anthropologist. The main topic was about the indentification of the
Russian czar and his family but she also talked about facial
reconstruction. Apparently she had an MRI(I think it was a MRI anyway),
made a cast of her skull and mailed ten or so out to different people
who specialize in reconstruction. The results were pretty hilarious and
only one of them was accurate. It was done by a Russian that she knew.
Apparently they have a different technique in Russia which involves
recreating the actual muscle groups instead of just going with tissue
depth.
So I tend to have a healthy skepticism about it these days.
Peace-out
quibbler
elroy...@swbell.net says...
>
> I watched a show last night on science channel about one of the
> earliest known hominid ancestors, and they had an artist who
> reconstructed what she thought they might have looked like. When
> she was finished, it was almost eerie to me to look into the eyes of
> an ancient proto-human.
The main problem is that the measurements they make about the size
of the nose, the shape of muscles, etc are all based upon figures
found by analyzing human cadavers. The specifics of these
measurements might be different for protohumans. They might be more
like the specs for chimps than humans.
>
> Obviously, a lot of the artwork is speculative, but just how much of
> it is speculative is my question?
>
> Has anyone ever seen one of the reconstruction artists do a
> reconstruction of a modern human skull, that someone has actual
> pictures of before the person died? Maybe a solved crime where they
> found a human skull and the artist did a reconstruction, and then
> someone recognized it, and afterward, an actual photo of the
> person and the reconstructed head are shown side by side to see
> how close the artist got it right?
They often look close, but are not necessarily perfect, because they
are guessing about things that aren't there. For example, the nose
can be many different shapes. There are general specs about how
long we would expect it to be and possibly indications about
curvature, slenderness of the bridge, etc. But for the most part,
they just put a sort of generic nose on.
>
>
--
"Faith, indeed, has up to the present not been
able to move real mountains ... But it can put
mountains where there are none." -- Nietzsche
Iain
The following is plain flesh-on-skull:
A neanderthal child:
http://home.att.net/~edgrenda/pow/pow14.htm
Rudolfensis:
http://www.vobs.at/bio/evolution/e-h-rudo.jpg
Homo erectus:
http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2004/TECH/science/02/12/coolsc.thickskulls/vert.homo.erectus1.jpg
Habilis:
http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/troufs/anth1602/images/H_habilis_200.jpeg
Habilis complete:
http://www.ecsd.com/~rhhedgz1/habilis.jpg
Another homo erectus:
http://www.etsu.edu/physics/plntrm/dino/herectus.gif
Afarensis:
http://www.naturhistorisches-museum.de/afarensis-mann.jpg
Africanus:
http://www.fogato.com/pannello_homo/africanus
Nice skull documentation:
http://peinandoelmono.tripod.com/galeria_a.htm
~Iain
Robibnikoff
"Iain" <iain_i...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144181876....@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>
> Elroy Willis wrote:
>> I watched a show last night on science channel about one of the
>> earliest known hominid ancestors, and they had an artist who
>> reconstructed what she thought they might have looked like. When
>> she was finished, it was almost eerie to me to look into the eyes of
>> an ancient proto-human.
>>
>> Obviously, a lot of the artwork is speculative, but just how much of
>> it is speculative is my question?
>>
>> Has anyone ever seen one of the reconstruction artists do a
>> reconstruction of a modern human skull, that someone has actual
>> pictures of before the person died? Maybe a solved crime where they
>> found a human skull and the artist did a reconstruction, and then
>> someone recognized it, and afterward, an actual photo of the
>> person and the reconstructed head are shown side by side to see
>> how close the artist got it right?
>
>
> The following is plain flesh-on-skull:
>
> A neanderthal child:
> http://home.att.net/~edgrenda/pow/pow14.htm
Damn! Looks just like my nephew! Oh dear <:/
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
Atheist Bastard Extraordinaire
#1557
Jim07D6
>
>I watched a show last night on science channel about one of the
>earliest known hominid ancestors, and they had an artist who
>reconstructed what she thought they might have looked like. When
>she was finished, it was almost eerie to me to look into the eyes of
>an ancient proto-human.
>
>Obviously, a lot of the artwork is speculative, but just how much of
>it is speculative is my question?
If it looks like Ringo Starr, it's not speculative. ;-)
--- Jim07D6
Brian E. Clark
@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>, Iain said...
> The following is plain flesh-on-skull:
>
> A neanderthal child:
> http://home.att.net/~edgrenda/pow/pow14.htm
Isn't that the kid from "The Neverending Story"?
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
Elroy Willis
> Elroy Willis wrote:
>> I watched a show last night on science channel about one of the
>> earliest known hominid ancestors, and they had an artist who
>> reconstructed what she thought they might have looked like. When
>> she was finished, it was almost eerie to me to look into the eyes of
>> an ancient proto-human.
>> Obviously, a lot of the artwork is speculative, but just how much of
>> it is speculative is my question?
> The following is plain flesh-on-skull:
> A neanderthal child:
> http://home.att.net/~edgrenda/pow/pow14.htm
> Rudolfensis:
> http://www.vobs.at/bio/evolution/e-h-rudo.jpg
> Homo erectus:
> http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2004/TECH/science/02/12/coolsc.thickskulls/vert.homo.erectus1.jpg
> Habilis:
> http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/troufs/anth1602/images/H_habilis_200.jpeg
> Habilis complete:
> http://www.ecsd.com/~rhhedgz1/habilis.jpg
> Another homo erectus:
> http://www.etsu.edu/physics/plntrm/dino/herectus.gif
> Afarensis:
> http://www.naturhistorisches-museum.de/afarensis-mann.jpg
> Africanus:
> http://www.fogato.com/pannello_homo/africanus
Thanks for the links. Having an actual face and eyes to look at makes
all of the above more real than just some bare skull.
I wonder what the fundies make of them, or if they're afraid to look
at 'em. They probably think they were just dumb animals killed in the
flood. Or did Noah save them, and they were killed off later on?
Hmm...
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
Elroy Willis
> Elroy Willis wrote:
>> I watched a show last night on science channel about one of the
>> earliest known hominid ancestors, and they had an artist who
>> reconstructed what she thought they might have looked like. When
>> she was finished, it was almost eerie to me to look into the eyes of
>> an ancient proto-human.
>> Obviously, a lot of the artwork is speculative, but just how much of
>> it is speculative is my question?
>> Has anyone ever seen one of the reconstruction artists do a
>> reconstruction of a modern human skull, that someone has actual
>> pictures of before the person died? Maybe a solved crime where they
>> found a human skull and the artist did a reconstruction, and then
>> someone recognized it, and afterward, an actual photo of the
>> person and the reconstructed head are shown side by side to see
>> how close the artist got it right?
> I'm not sure that these are really comparable. A modern forensic
> sculptor has a lot of chances to practice, because they can work on a
> skull and then compare it to photographs of the original.
Once they see an original photograph, wouldn't their artwork be
tainted if they went back and changed their work?
> Someone reconstructing an ancient hominid ancestor can use that
> knowledge for reconstructing attachment points, but that only goes so
> far. Coloration, hair patterns, fatty deposits, and the like are
> speculation.
> Think of a simple feature like the fold of an Asian's eye. I don't
> believe that that has any trace in the skull, but has an impact on the
> appearance of the person.
Same for eye color, ear size/shape, hair color/length, skin color --
if all you have is a bare skull to work with.
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
William Wingstedt
Didn't they decide that their god placed these apparent remnants of a
time *before* it created the universe just to confound us? It seems
that now they have some controversy to "teach" which they will claim
validates their "science".
>
>--
>Elroy Willis
>www.elroysemporium.com
>
Iain
You can get more info from the skull than first meets the eye.
~Iain