Farming-Language Dispersals: Principles
- PDF / 6,526,919 Bytes
- 221 Pages / 504.567 x 720 pts Page_size
- 29 Downloads / 168 Views
Facial Approximation and Craniofacial Superimposition Carl N. Stephan Central Identification Laboratory, Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command, Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, HI, USA
Introduction When concerns exist as to the identity of a set of remains and when DNA, dental, and radiographic comparisons are not possible, the morphology of the skull can be used in conjunction with the biological profile to help provide answers (I˙s¸can & Helmer 1993). These methods consequently hold special pertinence to medicolegal cases, and they take two forms: craniofacial superimposition and facial approximation (see the section “Definition” and Fig. 1). Unlike its counterpart method, facial approximation is also routinely used for paleoanthropological (Balter 2009) and archaeological purposes (Prag & Neave 1997). Craniofacial superimposition typically enables the determination of persons to whom the skull does not belong via image comparison, i.e., exclusion of individuals whose facial anatomy is inconsistent with that of the skull (Ubelaker 2002). Where multiple photographs and views of the face exist, and/or the teeth are visible, increased weight to positive matches may be assigned. On the other hand, facial
approximation is used to predict the facial appearance from a skull (Gerasimov 1955). In medicolegal contexts, correct recognition of the publically advertised facial approximation is ideal; however, successes may also be attained via facial approximation’s ability to capture public attention and focus it on the jointly advertised case details that, in turn, provide the stimulus for recognition (Stephan 2009). In non-forensic contexts, facial approximation may be employed to illustrate the potential facial appearance of the individuals to whom the recovered remains belong (Prag & Neave 1997; Balter 2009), and it is largely used in this context to boost public interest in archaeological finds. In these circumstances, facial approximations are typically constructed with greater detail and greater artistic license because the faces serve educational/ entertainment purposes whose accuracy is impossible to verify (Montagu 1947). Historically, superimposition and facial approximation coevolved from early attempts to authenticate the identities of skeletons thought to represent well-known historical figures (I˙s¸can & Helmer 1993). The implementation of facial approximation methods predates, however, that of craniofacial superimposition (see Kollmann & Bu¨chly 1898; Pearson & Morant 1934). In terms of medicolegal work, the first published use of facial approximation for homicide case investigation comes from the USA in 1916 (Wilder & Wenworth 1918) while that for craniofacial superimposition comes from Scotland in 1937 (Glaister & Brash 1937). While His (1895) is routinely cited
C. Smith (ed.), Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-0465-2, # Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014
F
2722
Facial Approximation and Craniofacial Superimposition
Facial Approximation and Craniofacial Superimposition,
Data Loading...
