Facial Reconstruction Research Paper
Why do you think there is so much interest in reconstructing the faces of the dead?
I think that if we are able to see the faces of people from the past, we will be to relate to them, empathize with them and ultimately, be able to imagine what they looked like when they were alive.
For example, if scientists are able to reconstruct the face of Pharaoh Tutankhamen, we will not only be able to see if the portrayal of him on his famous sarcophagus is correct, but we will also be able to imagine what people looked like in his time period and we can then give a relatively obscure ruler of Egypt a face.
Explain the different techniques used in facial reconstructions.
A bare skull is used as the basis of the reconstruction and from there, soft tissue is …show more content…
generated layer by layer. Perviously, clay and pegs (used to determine the depths of different muscles in the face) were used, and scientists would perform reconstructions by hand.
However, now with more advanced technology, computers create images based on the shape of the person’s skull and the level of thickness of the tissue surrounding it.
How accurate are such reconstructions? What implications are there for the historian?
Recent testing suggests that these techniques are not very accurate, after 21 experts were given the same skull to reconstruct and all results were different. The answer to this issue may be that different areas of the face have been used to tell how much tissue to add to the face, so results are different depending where this is measures from. Using ultrasound and CT scans to measure this on living subjects has proven this.
While a reconstructed face allows a historian to know the appearance of a dead subject, so they know the common physical features of the time and are able to recreate some aspects of their life, an incorrectly reconstructed face leads to incorrect assumptions being made about the past. For example, a certain amount of significance may be placed on one reconstructed face. If this reconstruction is incorrect, people will still associate to that face and thus, history may be
misinterpreted.
What perspectives about facial reconstructions are offered by Caroline Wilkinson and
Richard Neave in source 4.7?
Wilkinson states that facts need to be relied upon when interpreting the past, rather than the intuition that occurs when reconstructing faces as it is “more art than science”.
Neave offers the opinion that science still has a lot to do in improving the art of facial reconstruction, as no matter how correct measurements, etc. are theoretically, if a face is clumsily reproduced, it is not believable.
What do you think and why?
I think that it is impossible to get a reconstructed face to look exactly like it did when the person was alive, simply because it is so easy to execute the construction of the face incorrectly or to to get a measurement wrong by a millimeter. Also, there is none of the movement present in the face that existed when the person was alive - possibly why all the facial reconstructions I have seen look awkward and unbelievable.
I think that if we are able to see the faces of people from the past, we will be to relate to them, empathize with them and ultimately, be able to imagine what they looked like when they were alive.
For example, if scientists are able to reconstruct the face of Pharaoh Tutankhamen, we will not only be able to see if the portrayal of him on his famous sarcophagus is correct, but we will also be able to imagine what people looked like in his time period and we can then give a relatively obscure ruler of Egypt a face.
Explain the different techniques used in facial reconstructions.
A bare skull is used as the basis of the reconstruction and from there, soft tissue is …show more content…
generated layer by layer. Perviously, clay and pegs (used to determine the depths of different muscles in the face) were used, and scientists would perform reconstructions by hand.
However, now with more advanced technology, computers create images based on the shape of the person’s skull and the level of thickness of the tissue surrounding it.
How accurate are such reconstructions? What implications are there for the historian?
Recent testing suggests that these techniques are not very accurate, after 21 experts were given the same skull to reconstruct and all results were different. The answer to this issue may be that different areas of the face have been used to tell how much tissue to add to the face, so results are different depending where this is measures from. Using ultrasound and CT scans to measure this on living subjects has proven this.
While a reconstructed face allows a historian to know the appearance of a dead subject, so they know the common physical features of the time and are able to recreate some aspects of their life, an incorrectly reconstructed face leads to incorrect assumptions being made about the past. For example, a certain amount of significance may be placed on one reconstructed face. If this reconstruction is incorrect, people will still associate to that face and thus, history may be
misinterpreted.
What perspectives about facial reconstructions are offered by Caroline Wilkinson and
Richard Neave in source 4.7?
Wilkinson states that facts need to be relied upon when interpreting the past, rather than the intuition that occurs when reconstructing faces as it is “more art than science”.
Neave offers the opinion that science still has a lot to do in improving the art of facial reconstruction, as no matter how correct measurements, etc. are theoretically, if a face is clumsily reproduced, it is not believable.
What do you think and why?
I think that it is impossible to get a reconstructed face to look exactly like it did when the person was alive, simply because it is so easy to execute the construction of the face incorrectly or to to get a measurement wrong by a millimeter. Also, there is none of the movement present in the face that existed when the person was alive - possibly why all the facial reconstructions I have seen look awkward and unbelievable.