Anthropological facial 'reconstruction--recognizing the fallacies, 'unembracing' the errors, and realizing method limits.
Despite being practiced for over the last 200 years, facial approximation methods remain in their infancy as the soft tissue prediction methods employed have not been tested and justified. Scientific testing is the only way forward and much of it is needed. The lack of systematic scientific tests in the past has enabled many misleading notions to become established. Many of these notions appear to have arisen and been sustained as a result of practitioner biases--this is clearly evident even in the name commonly used to describe the method of building faces from skulls, for "facial reconstruction" implies everything the method is not, e.g., technical/scientific, exact, and credible. Although facial approximation methods are useful for forensic investigation (even if they do not generate identifications through true positive recognitions of the faces), the public should beware of the marketing and political ploys employed within the profession. These ploys give rise to some impressive, but unjustifiable claims--but do not just take my word for it; evaluate the evidence for yourself with disregard to the indoctrination waged by the facial "reconstruction" field in general, including that promoted by what I have had to say here. Use your own reason and intellect and see which conclusions you reach.
Stephan
C N
CN
Department of Anatomical Sciences, Bioanthropology and Comparative Anatomy Research Unit, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, 5005, Australia.
D001154:Art; D005145:Face / Q000033:anatomy & histology*; D018732:Forensic Anthropology / Q000379:methods*; D006801:Humans; D012886:Skull