On the 8th of October the The Hunterian Anatomy Museum of the University of Glasgow hosted the event: ''Night at the Anatomy Museum: Focus on MedTech''. 

More than 100 participants, 26 Collaborators and student volunteers, alongside staff and graduates/students from the University of Glasgow's School of Medicine, Dentistry and Nursing, and the School of Innovation and Technology from The Glasgow School of Art came together to highlight the role of technology in many Medical-related fields. From anatomy and medical imaging to AI, dentistry, forensics and emerging medical technologies. the evening brought together colleagues, students and members of the public to explore science through hands-on activities, demonstrations and conversations.

During the event, I had the wonderful opportunity to present the project 'The 3D Computerised Facial Reconstruction of the Neolithic Clachaig Skull: A revision of technology' and to lead an interactive workshop where participants could gain insight into the process behind this project by reconstructing facial muscles onto 3D printed skulls using plasticine. Not only were these materials somewhat readily available, which made the premise of this workshop feel really exciting and accessible, but since the underlying anatomy forms such a pivotal part of the face depicted, we thought that such a visual experience would bridge the gap between seeing the finished reconstruction and understanding the scientific knowledge applied.

With this blog post I thought I would take the opportunity to come back to some of the most frequently asked questions regarding the process behind this project, and answer them here! 

One of the very first things we were asked by the public was what do we mean by 'A revision of technology' when we refer to and talk about this project?

The entire scope of this project has always been 'A revision of technology', respectively, how could the technology we have now in terms of software and hardware, the contemporary techniques currently used by Forensic Artist and Craniofacial Identification practitioners and newly developed standards of estimation be put together to reconstruct one's face, compared to 20-30 years ago? When The first computerised reconstruction of the Clachaig Skull was produced by Prof. Peter Vanezis in 1998, the fundamental principles were the same: the original skull is scanned, and a 3D reconstruction in produced using a computer and appropriate software. But if we look at the details, we see clearly the evolution of technology: Artec Spider Light scanners used in contemporary computerised methods have a 3D Point accuracy for scanning of up to 0.05mm; Geomagic Freeform allows for a "clay body" concept that prevents topological errors, non-manifold geometries and self-intersections; it also allows users to 'feel' the process through the tactile technology of haptic devices, which essentially mimics the traditional physical reconstruction process in a digital environment. Craniofacial estimates for the prediction of different facial tissue morphologies have also evolved, with trailblazers such as Prof. Caroline Wilkinson, Dr Christopher Rynn, Drs Pierre Guyomarc’h and Carl N. Stephen, Dr Tobias Houlton & Dr Jessica Liu, just to name a few, driving the progression of research and developing standards used in contemporary practice.

That's not to say that the technologies available in the 90s weren't extraordinary for their time! For the first computerised reconstruction of the Clachaig Skull, Peter and Maria Vanezis have used a low-power laser scanner and a video camera interfaced to a computer in order to create a digital asset of the skull, onto which a scanned face that matched the skull anthropologically (age, sex, etc.), chosen from a databank, was placed over the skull similarly to a mask. The facial planes of the 'mask' were altered using Facial Soft Tissue Thickness Markers (FSTT), conforming this to the specific morphology of the underlying skull. The software used at the time (likely a custom software using the TCL/Tk scripting language and the C3D system) definitely stands as a testament to how far the software's used in this field have progressed. 

 

And revisiting the reconstruction with respect to technological advancements also uncovers a different field of exploration: How can we use readily available technology for producing visualisation materials for Museum exhibits?

 

This question is often met with many solutions and experimental endeavours in terms of applications of technology; from VR experiences to AR applications, animations displayed on screens, interactive 3D models and sound and moving image experiences, Museum exhibits are slowly but surely adapting digital media for its showcases more and more. The Clachaig Skull posed as a perfect subject from this stand-point. It was excavated from a cairn near the Clachaig Falls on the Isle of Arran, situated on the West Coast of Scotland, in the 1900's by Dr James Bryce, and anthropological and archeological assessments show that it dates back to the Neolithic period, circa 5,500 years ago. Due the farming settlements in the area, as well as the anthropological assessment on the skull in itself, experts believe that it belonged to a man, between 30-50 years old at the time of death, who was likely a farmer. The Neolithic period also marks the revolutionary shift between hunting and gathering, to farming communities and established settlements, and for these reasons many have dubbed the 'Clachaig Man' ''One of Scotland's first farmers''. To summarise, how amazing is it that such a well preserved skull belonging to an individual from so long ago, has been found so well preserved and may be seen by the public in the Hunterian Museum? Only if that wasn't the catch: after being on display for so long, the Clachaig Skull has finally been retired to the Archives. A previous facial reconstruction, not produced by Vanezis but rather by a local artist by the name of Marvin Elliot, remains displayed in the Arran Heritage Museum. The work is an artistic rendition mean to give the the Clachaig Skull a face, however it is not a scientific depiction or facial approximation. This is where the initiative of creating digital resources for such artefacts becomes a means of accessibility, as even beyond the the Archive, or a glass cabinet, the Clachaig Skull can be immortalised in a new identity, a remembered symbol of Scottish history and heritage.

We were also asked how could we know that the face reconstructed would really look as it was depicted? 

Truthfully, no one could replicate exactly what someone from the past may have looked like, but we can get pretty close. This is achieved through not only the application of facial muscles as a 'canvas' of sorts onto which all the other features would rest, but also something known as Facial Soft Tissue Thickness Markers (FSTT) in Anthropological and Forensic Reconstruction practices. These are standardised depth measurements taken from various population groups, at different age ranges, and for the biological-sex groups. What these measurements essentially tell Forensic Artists is the distance between the skull and the skin at different craniofacial points. When used in addition to modelling the facial muscles onto the skull, the contours of one's face are filled in intuitively, and a face takes shape. However, the planes on one's face, regardless of the tissue depth markers and facial muscles, are determined by the skull in itself- this is why some practitioners refer to this process as a ''Facial Reconstruction'' rather than 'Facial Approximation'- the idea that every skull could only form one face when reconstructed. Facial Approximation is a term used to relate to the same practice or reconstructing one's face based on the skull, but a term that carries more ambiguity regarding one's identity. In Forensic cases, artists do not benefit of the same artistic freedom as when working on archeological projects. This is because colouristic choices such as eyes, skin and hair colour, and information on hairstyle, and hair type, is either dependent on DNA information or simply not accurately determined with the research available. Adopting choices on these matters for forensic facial reconstructions may affect weather an individual may or may not be identified, and as for anthropological reconstructions, unless DNA data may be available, these details would be entirely speculative. For the purpose of the Clachaig Reconstruction, although the research applied thus far can give a strong output in terms of the facial morphology, due to DNA data not being available at the time of this project, the colouristic choices for the eyes, skin and hair as well as hairstyle remain simply an artistic rendition. 

I was delighted by the curiosity and enthusiasm shown at our stand, and by the privilege of showcasing through this project the practical application of a fundamental technique in anthropology and forensic identification. I am grateful for being invited to present and overall content with the opportunity to share something I am so passionate about with the public.

 In public engagement events, it is YOU (you who attended, or you who is reading this) who brings meaning to it all!

Group photo of all the collaborators and staff.
          The Clachaig Reconstruction stall with the 3D printed skulls used in the workshop.
(Disclaimer: any sensitive material had been blurred in this image in accordance with the Code of Conduct of the Hunterian Museum. No real biological material is shown and the skull in the image are 3D printed models.)
 Image taken from the workshop sheet, showing a the steps necessary for completing the workshop activity. All figures shown are 2D render images of the 3D assets used in the Clachaig project, created using 3ds Max and ZBrush.