Visual Depictions of Our Evolutionary Past: A Broad Case Study Concerning the Need for Quantitative Methods of Soft Tissue Reconstruction and Art-Science Collaborations

Abstract

Flip through scientific textbooks illustrating ideas about human evolution or visit any number of museums of natural history and you will notice an abundance of reconstructions attempting to depict the appearance of ancient hominins. Spend some time comparing reconstructions of the same specimen and notice an obvious fact: hominin reconstructions vary in appearance considerably. In this review, we summarize existing methods of reconstruction to analyze this variability. It is argued that variability between hominin reconstructions is likely the result of unreliable reconstruction methods and misinterpretation of available evidence. We also discuss the risk of disseminating erroneous ideas about human evolution through the use of unscientific reconstructions in museums and publications. 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.

Towards the restoration of ancient hominid craniofacial anatomy: Chimpanzee morphology reveals covariation between craniometrics and facial soft tissue thickness

“…Furthermore, research attempting to recover the size and location of 92 muscles in human material reported that only 23 could be reliably reconstructed from bone alone [ 60 ]. Gurche’s reconstructions are not necessarily illogical by any means but his approximations are not produced from direct observations of bone as commonly believed [ 8 ]. While a practitioner’s sculptural skills and anatomical expertise is an obvious benefit in any facial approximation, in isolation the intuited use of this knowledge alone is highly vulnerable to subjective interpretation.…”

“…Worse still, in its present state the practice of hominid reconstruction is particularly vulnerable to attack. Campbell et al [ 8 ] argues that reconstructions based on unspecified sets of assumptions and biased misconceptions can actually do harm by perpetuating erroneous ideas about human evolution. Critics of human evolution are already using discrepancies between reconstructions of the same individual to undermine the reliability of evolutionary theory.…”

Relationships between the hard and soft dimensions of the nose in Pan troglodytes and Homo sapiens reveal the nasal protrusions of Plio-Pleistocene hominids

“…paniscus and G. gorilla), these equations can be applied in facial approximation of extinct Plio-Pleistocene hominins. Furthermore, given the absence of soft tissue in the fossil record, which has been shown to pose a particular problem for approximations of Homo habilis and Homo naledi (Campbell et al, 2021b), quantitative linear regression essentially removes descriptive speculation during the approximation of this aspect of the nose for these species.…”

“…In contrast to human noses, the noses of chimpanzees, and of other great apes (bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans), are relatively flat. An investigation into the morphological differences between extant hominids may result in more accurate facial approximation methods, which are needed to reduce the excessive variability recognized in facial approximations of the same individual (Anderson, 2011;Campbell et al, 2021b).…”

Relationships between the hard and soft dimensions of the nose in Pan troglodytes and Homo sapiens reveal the positions of the nasal tips of Plio-Pleistocene hominids

“…In contrast to human noses, the noses of chimpanzees, and of other great apes (bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans), are relatively flat. Therefore, an investigation into the morphological differences between extant hominids may result in more scientifically robust facial approximation methods, which are needed to reduce the excessive variability recognized in facial approximations of the same individual [ 8 , 9 ].…”