First Review Article
Visual Depictions of Our Evolutionary Past:
A Broad Case Study Concerning the Need for Quantitative Methods of Soft Tissue Reconstruction and Art-Science Collaborations
Article Summary
Reconstructions of Plio-Pleistocene hominids have become increasingly popular in recent years, particularly those key species on the branch of the tree of life to which we belong. The use of such reconstructions has been considered as an effective translator of scientific knowledge, as they represent a synthesis of information that is more accessible and comprehensible to the general public. Therefore, their role in disseminating discoveries and advances in the field of biological/physical anthropology is of fundamental importance.
The aims of this research were to provide a comprehensive review of the approaches involved in the production of hominid reconstructions, from the early nineteenth century to modern-day forensic and computer-based methods. This research also provides a review of the broader societal implications of presenting visual depictions of hominids that are not based on strong scientific foundations.
The basis for this review stemmed chiefly from the work we began in 2014 attempting to produce our own reconstructions. As these preliminary studies show, the practice is mostly based on methods that are unreliable resulting in gross discrepancies between reconstructions of the same individual between museum displays. So severe are these discrepancies that it is almost as though previous practitioners had never encountered a single hominin reconstruction before commending their own.
The figure to the right highlights this issue in one of our own reconstructions made using those unreliable methods.
This publication was intended from the outset to be read within the context of an eBook, the text includes references to the “special issue” to which this manuscript was enclosed, but the content stands on its own and can be read as such.
Shown below are laser scans taken at various points of the reconstruction process for Amud 1, a neanderthal specimen we used to test a reconstruction method using regression models made from human data and the resulting reconstruction without pigmentation or implanted hair.
The role an artist plays is also analyzed and criticized given how the aforementioned reconstructions have become readily accepted to line the halls of even the most trusted institutions. In conclusion, improved reconstruction methods hold promise for the prediction of hominin soft tissues, as well as for disseminating current scientific understandings of human evolution in the future.
Taken together, the final manuscript is the first time that such a formal survey and systematic analysis of the literature has been conducted. It provides value as a kind of handbook that will be useful to all those involved in the detailed and tedious, albeit exciting, work of reconstructing the appearances of our ancestors.
Gabriel’s marble carving, titled “Santa Lucia”, also features in the article in the section regarding the ethics of reconstruction to highlight the difference between artistic license and scientific license.