Reading an article about people being mean about the facial reconstruction of a skull found in Scotland 600 year after he died, he looks a bit strange but not really anything you wouldn’t see today.

I’m wondering how accurate they are, is it science with a lot of guesswork and assumptions.

You could I suppose give the people who do it a skull of a person whom we have photos of and see how they do.

Cymek said:

Reading an article about people being mean about the facial reconstruction of a skull found in Scotland 600 year after he died, he looks a bit strange but not really anything you wouldn’t see today.

I’m wondering how accurate they are, is it science with a lot of guesswork and assumptions.

You could I suppose give the people who do it a skull of a person whom we have photos of and see how they do.

it’s part science and part interpretation..

there are some markers that get used on soft tissue depths that are ‘typical’ of race and time. There is some science in lengths of noses based on the nasal cavity, but of course that doesn’t not account for living injuries (like breaks). There is a lot of information on typical features of hair and browlines, especially in older societies where there are ‘purer’ lineages. But there is also a deal of artistic interpretation… for example the soft tissue is almost always guess work.. lips have no cranial features to follow nor do ears… facial hair is also guesswork…

in modern times colour of hair, hairlines and noses (that were typically racial markers) have greater variations… unfortunately noses change the recognition factors of a face quite dramatically…

Arts said:

Cymek said:

Reading an article about people being mean about the facial reconstruction of a skull found in Scotland 600 year after he died, he looks a bit strange but not really anything you wouldn’t see today.

I’m wondering how accurate they are, is it science with a lot of guesswork and assumptions.

You could I suppose give the people who do it a skull of a person whom we have photos of and see how they do.

it’s part science and part interpretation..

there are some markers that get used on soft tissue depths that are ‘typical’ of race and time. There is some science in lengths of noses based on the nasal cavity, but of course that doesn’t not account for living injuries (like breaks). There is a lot of information on typical features of hair and browlines, especially in older societies where there are ‘purer’ lineages. But there is also a deal of artistic interpretation… for example the soft tissue is almost always guess work.. lips have no cranial features to follow nor do ears… facial hair is also guesswork…

in modern times colour of hair, hairlines and noses (that were typically racial markers) have greater variations… unfortunately noses change the recognition factors of a face quite dramatically…

Surely in this time of deep faking and automated photographic enhancing (so even the “original” is bullshit) they could make it pretty damn good.

SCIENCE said:

Arts said:

Cymek said:

Reading an article about people being mean about the facial reconstruction of a skull found in Scotland 600 year after he died, he looks a bit strange but not really anything you wouldn’t see today.

I’m wondering how accurate they are, is it science with a lot of guesswork and assumptions.

You could I suppose give the people who do it a skull of a person whom we have photos of and see how they do.

it’s part science and part interpretation..

there are some markers that get used on soft tissue depths that are ‘typical’ of race and time. There is some science in lengths of noses based on the nasal cavity, but of course that doesn’t not account for living injuries (like breaks). There is a lot of information on typical features of hair and browlines, especially in older societies where there are ‘purer’ lineages. But there is also a deal of artistic interpretation… for example the soft tissue is almost always guess work.. lips have no cranial features to follow nor do ears… facial hair is also guesswork…

in modern times colour of hair, hairlines and noses (that were typically racial markers) have greater variations… unfortunately noses change the recognition factors of a face quite dramatically…

Surely in this time of deep faking and automated photographic enhancing (so even the “original” is bullshit) they could make it pretty damn good.

it’s probably easier to slightly alter with new information these days because recon is done on computer… back in the day (and what I have taught high school kids) is the old clay models that can turn out great, but also can be terrible and rather generic looking.. it depends on the information at hand but if it’s a John or Jane doe and someone is going off the skull only it is more difficult no matter what the technique used is..

sure they can come up with a pretty good looking face, but accuracy is questionable ..

Arts said:

rather generic looking.. it depends on the information at hand but if it’s a John or Jane doe and someone is going off the skull only it is more difficult no matter what the technique used is..

sure they can come up with a pretty good looking face, but accuracy is questionable ..

we thought that was because the average face is quite an attractive face, and not just in a mathematical sense

I use these skulls..

which are of an Asian Male.. but no matter how many times I do it the face turns out differently.. and mostly not asian looking (granted I am doing it in an hour.. but even over hours it would take a lot of artistic licence (ie nothing scientific) to created an authentic asian looking face…

SCIENCE said:

Arts said:

rather generic looking.. it depends on the information at hand but if it’s a John or Jane doe and someone is going off the skull only it is more difficult no matter what the technique used is..

sure they can come up with a pretty good looking face, but accuracy is questionable ..

we thought that was because the average face is quite an attractive face, and not just in a mathematical sense

an average face isn’t what we want to put out there to Joe Public for recognition purposes.

But I meant good looking as in a face that looks like a human face. :)

Arts said:

I use these skulls..

which are of an Asian Male.. but no matter how many times I do it the face turns out differently.. and mostly not asian looking (granted I am doing it in an hour.. but even over hours it would take a lot of artistic licence (ie nothing scientific) to created an authentic asian looking face…

Thanks

Arts said:

I use these skulls..

“/uploads/9c529f09-9662-49ec-8d2c-55f50206386e.jpe”

which are of an Asian Male.. but no matter how many times I do it the face turns out differently.. and mostly not asian looking (granted I am doing it in an hour.. but even over hours it would take a lot of artistic licence (ie nothing scientific) to created an authentic asian looking face…

Are they actual skulls, or artificial? I One of the people in college with me had a complete human skeleton (female, Indian; the student called it Sarah), but I’ve read that trading in human remains (specifically including skeletons/bones) has been outlawed (at least in Australia.) The student was studying medicine, so had a reasonable excuse to have it, and she said she’d had it for some time (before trading was outlawed, so as long as she didn’t try to sell it she was OK.)

btm said:

Arts said:

I use these skulls..

“/uploads/9c529f09-9662-49ec-8d2c-55f50206386e.jpe”

which are of an Asian Male.. but no matter how many times I do it the face turns out differently.. and mostly not asian looking (granted I am doing it in an hour.. but even over hours it would take a lot of artistic licence (ie nothing scientific) to created an authentic asian looking face…

Are they actual skulls, or artificial? I One of the people in college with me had a complete human skeleton (female, Indian; the student called it Sarah), but I’ve read that trading in human remains (specifically including skeletons/bones) has been outlawed (at least in Australia.) The student was studying medicine, so had a reasonable excuse to have it, and she said she’d had it for some time (before trading was outlawed, so as long as she didn’t try to sell it she was OK.)

In the early 1980s the med students at Melbourne had real skeletons to work with.

btm said:

Arts said:

I use these skulls..

“/uploads/9c529f09-9662-49ec-8d2c-55f50206386e.jpe”

which are of an Asian Male.. but no matter how many times I do it the face turns out differently.. and mostly not asian looking (granted I am doing it in an hour.. but even over hours it would take a lot of artistic licence (ie nothing scientific) to created an authentic asian looking face…

Are they actual skulls, or artificial? I One of the people in college with me had a complete human skeleton (female, Indian; the student called it Sarah), but I’ve read that trading in human remains (specifically including skeletons/bones) has been outlawed (at least in Australia.) The student was studying medicine, so had a reasonable excuse to have it, and she said she’d had it for some time (before trading was outlawed, so as long as she didn’t try to sell it she was OK.)

these are skulls bought from Boneclones.. so they are artificial in that sense, but bone clones uses real samples to clone from for the authenticity of the features.. we have used real bones in some of our exam situations, but they are fairly fragile, so for most learning purposes we use the bone clones.

from a personal stand point I think using facial reconstruction is not the greatest idea for trying to identify a John or Jane doe… these things usually go out to the public and it creates a priming confirmation bias so that any variations are not considered.

I think it’s great for things like historical references, especially where time is not a factor…

though modern techniques are improving.

In a previous life, I prepared the artwork for publishing a journal on postmortem facial reconstruction (there’s a proper term for it that escapes me), and got to reading some of it as I went. There was a case history about a skeleton that had been found on Table Mountain in South Africa, and a account of how they went about building a likeness.

In the end, the result bore a resemblance to a young women who’d gone missing some years before – her parents were called in to inspect the handiwork and confirmed that with only a few small differences it was their daughter. They also added that it was the spitting image of their niece (who was alive and well).

This was thirty odd years ago, so I expect methods are different, but I would guess from that one case that it can be done.

Neophyte said:

In a previous life, I prepared the artwork for publishing a journal on postmortem facial reconstruction (there’s a proper term for it that escapes me), and got to reading some of it as I went. There was a case history about a skeleton that had been found on Table Mountain in South Africa, and a account of how they went about building a likeness.

In the end, the result bore a resemblance to a young women who’d gone missing some years before – her parents were called in to inspect the handiwork and confirmed that with only a few small differences it was their daughter. They also added that it was the spitting image of their niece (who was alive and well).

This was thirty odd years ago, so I expect methods are different, but I would guess from that one case that it can be done.

well, I mean, it is a technique that is used and approved of in many of the cases.. and I suspect there is enough of an element of ‘success’ that they warrant continued use.. it would be interesting to see the stats of how many cases using facial reconstruction techniques are aided by using it compared to the ones that use it and it ends up nothing. By your closing logic psychics can also help cases..

Arts said:

Neophyte said:

In a previous life, I prepared the artwork for publishing a journal on postmortem facial reconstruction (there’s a proper term for it that escapes me), and got to reading some of it as I went. There was a case history about a skeleton that had been found on Table Mountain in South Africa, and a account of how they went about building a likeness.

In the end, the result bore a resemblance to a young women who’d gone missing some years before – her parents were called in to inspect the handiwork and confirmed that with only a few small differences it was their daughter. They also added that it was the spitting image of their niece (who was alive and well).

This was thirty odd years ago, so I expect methods are different, but I would guess from that one case that it can be done.

well, I mean, it is a technique that is used and approved of in many of the cases.. and I suspect there is enough of an element of ‘success’ that they warrant continued use.. it would be interesting to see the stats of how many cases using facial reconstruction techniques are aided by using it compared to the ones that use it and it ends up nothing. By your closing logic psychics can also help cases..

Madame Zhora told me there’d be people like you, last time I had a reading.

Neophyte said:

Arts said:

Neophyte said:

In a previous life, I prepared the artwork for publishing a journal on postmortem facial reconstruction (there’s a proper term for it that escapes me), and got to reading some of it as I went. There was a case history about a skeleton that had been found on Table Mountain in South Africa, and a account of how they went about building a likeness.

In the end, the result bore a resemblance to a young women who’d gone missing some years before – her parents were called in to inspect the handiwork and confirmed that with only a few small differences it was their daughter. They also added that it was the spitting image of their niece (who was alive and well).

This was thirty odd years ago, so I expect methods are different, but I would guess from that one case that it can be done.

well, I mean, it is a technique that is used and approved of in many of the cases.. and I suspect there is enough of an element of ‘success’ that they warrant continued use.. it would be interesting to see the stats of how many cases using facial reconstruction techniques are aided by using it compared to the ones that use it and it ends up nothing. By your closing logic psychics can also help cases..

Madame Zhora told me there’d be people like you, last time I had a reading.

OMG. she was right, there ARE people like me.

Arts said:

Neophyte said:

Arts said:

well, I mean, it is a technique that is used and approved of in many of the cases.. and I suspect there is enough of an element of ‘success’ that they warrant continued use.. it would be interesting to see the stats of how many cases using facial reconstruction techniques are aided by using it compared to the ones that use it and it ends up nothing. By your closing logic psychics can also help cases..

Madame Zhora told me there’d be people like you, last time I had a reading.

OMG. she was right, there ARE people like me.

only one.

Yeah it’d be ok, probably close enough.

Cymek said:

Arts said:

I use these skulls..

which are of an Asian Male.. but no matter how many times I do it the face turns out differently.. and mostly not asian looking (granted I am doing it in an hour.. but even over hours it would take a lot of artistic licence (ie nothing scientific) to created an authentic asian looking face…

Thanks

LOL. Love it. Are they brachycephalic, dolichocephalic or platycephalic? (to quote Agatha Christie, “the man in the brown suit”)

I’m getting concerned about “robust” skulls. Are there any people still around on the face of the Earth with the robust skull phenotype? ie. receding chin, sloping forehead and heavy brow ridge.

I find it quite different to spot a robust skull from the front, but it becomes very much more obvious from the side, especially without a beard.

mollwollfumble said:

Cymek said:

Arts said:

I use these skulls..

which are of an Asian Male.. but no matter how many times I do it the face turns out differently.. and mostly not asian looking (granted I am doing it in an hour.. but even over hours it would take a lot of artistic licence (ie nothing scientific) to created an authentic asian looking face…

Thanks

LOL. Love it. Are they brachycephalic, dolichocephalic or platycephalic? (to quote Agatha Christie, “the man in the brown suit”)

I’m getting concerned about “robust” skulls. Are there any people still around on the face of the Earth with the robust skull phenotype? ie. receding chin, sloping forehead and heavy brow ridge.

I find it quite different to spot a robust skull from the front, but it becomes very much more obvious from the side, especially without a beard.

we use the word robust when trying to determine sex and ethnicity.. the robust brow ridge is common of males, but also of African Americans and indigenous Australians… so the terminology comes with context. we don’t really look at the whole skull in forensic anthropology and determine robustness as a features, it is a specific feature of a identifying factor. I think you are talking about historical anthro’s determination… of which I have little specialised knowledge.

Arts said:

mollwollfumble said:

Cymek said:

Thanks

LOL. Love it. Are they brachycephalic, dolichocephalic or platycephalic? (to quote Agatha Christie, “the man in the brown suit”)

I’m getting concerned about “robust” skulls. Are there any people still around on the face of the Earth with the robust skull phenotype? ie. receding chin, sloping forehead and heavy brow ridge.

I find it quite different to spot a robust skull from the front, but it becomes very much more obvious from the side, especially without a beard.

we use the word robust when trying to determine sex and ethnicity.. the robust brow ridge is common of males, but also of African Americans and indigenous Australians… so the terminology comes with context. we don’t really look at the whole skull in forensic anthropology and determine robustness as a features, it is a specific feature of a identifying factor. I think you are talking about historical anthro’s determination… of which I have little specialised knowledge.

Some aborigines used to have robust skulls, but I think the tribe that did went extinct in the 1950s?

Makes me wonder how accurate our perceptions what dinosaurs looked like are.

Cymek said:

Reading an article about people being mean about the facial reconstruction of a skull found in Scotland 600 year after he died, he looks a bit strange but not really anything you wouldn’t see today.

I’m wondering how accurate they are, is it science with a lot of guesswork and assumptions.

You could I suppose give the people who do it a skull of a person whom we have photos of and see how they do.

All facial bones are different aren’t they, a bit like finger prints, skin can be mapped over bone.

The variables are harder, how much muscle, how much fat, size of organs, colour of skin, texture of skin, and hair color and length etc some of that information can come from genetics then applied to what’s known about the skeleton but there still bits of information missing, shape of nose, shape of ears, shape of genitalia, general look of person, skin blemishes any injuries marks or previous bone breaks, previous diseases, long term diet and other factors.