Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology

2014 Edition
| Editors: Claire Smith

Facial Approximation and Craniofacial Superimposition

Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0465-2_149


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 (İşcan & 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).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. Austin-Smith, D. & W.R. Maples. 1994. The reliability of skull/photograph superimposition in individual identification. Journal of Forensic Sciences 39: 446-55.Google Scholar
  2. Balter, M. 2009. News focus - bringing hominins back to life. Science 325: 136-9.Google Scholar
  3. Gavan, J.A., S.L. Washburn & P.H. Lewis. 1952. Photography: an anthropometric tool. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 10: 331-53.Google Scholar
  4. Gerasimov, M.M. 1955. Vosstanovlenie lica po cerepu. Moskva: Izdat. Akademii Nauk SSSR.Google Scholar
  5. Glaister, J. & J.C. Brash. 1937. Medico-legal aspects of the Ruxton case. Baltimore: William Wood and Co.Google Scholar
  6. His, W. 1895. Anatomische Forschungen über Johann Sebastian Bach's Gebeine und Antlitz nebst Bemerkungen über dessen Bilder. Abhandlungen der mathematisch-physikalischen Klasse der Königlichen Sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften 22: 379-420.Google Scholar
  7. İşcan, M.Y. & R. Helmer. 1993. Forensic analysis of the skull. New York: Wiley-Liss.Google Scholar
  8. Kollmann, J. & W. Büchly. 1898. Die Persistenz der Rassen und die Rekonstruktion der Physiognomie prähistorischer Schädel. Archiv für Anthropologie 25: 329-59.Google Scholar
  9. Montagu, M.F.A. 1947. A study of man embracing error. Technology Review 49: 345-7.Google Scholar
  10. Pearson, K. & G.M. Morant. 1934. The Wilkinson head of Oliver Cromwell and its relationship to busts, masks and painted portraits. Biometrika 26: 18-378.Google Scholar
  11. Prag, J. & R. Neave. 1997. Making faces: using forensic and archaeological evidence. London: British Museum Press.Google Scholar
  12. Stephan, C.N. 2009. Craniofacial identification: techniques of facial approximation and craniofacial superimposition, in S. Blau & D.H. Ubelaker (ed.) Handbook of forensic anthropology and archaeology: 304-21. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.Google Scholar
  13. Stephan, C.N. & E.K. Simpson. 2008a. Facial soft tissue depths in craniofacial identification (part I): an analytical review of the published adult data. Journal of Forensic Sciences 53: 1257-72.Google Scholar
  14. - 2008b. Facial soft tissue depths in craniofacial identification (part II): an analytical review of the published sub-adult data. Journal of Forensic Sciences 53: 1273-9.Google Scholar
  15. Stephan, C.N. & M. Henneberg. 2006. Recognition by facial approximation: case specific examples and empirical tests. Forensic Science International 156: 182-91.Google Scholar
  16. Taylor, J.A. & K.A. Brown. 1998. Superimposition techniques, in J.G. Clement & D.L. Ranson (ed.) Craniofacial identification in forensic medicine: 151-64. London: Hodder Arnold.Google Scholar
  17. Tyrrell, A.J., M.P. Evison, A.T. Chamberlain & M.A. Green. 1997. Forensic three-dimensional facial reconstruction: Historical review and contemporary developments. Journal of Forensic Sciences 42: 653-61.Google Scholar
  18. Ubelaker, D.H. 2002. Cranial photographic superimposition, in C.H. Wecht (ed.) Forensic sciences: 3-38. New York: Matthew Bender.Google Scholar
  19. Wilder, H.H. & B. Wenworth. 1918. Personal identification: methods for the identification of individuals, living or dead. Boston: Gorham Press.Google Scholar

Further Reading

  1. Clement, J.G. & M. Marks. 2005. Computer graphic facial reconstruction. Boston: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  2. Taylor, K.T. 2001. Forensic art and illustration. Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  3. Vandermeulen, D., P. Claes, D. Loeckx, S. De Greef, G. Willems & P. Suetens. 2006. Computerized craniofacial reconstruction using CT-derived implicit surface representations. Forensic Science International 159S: S164-74.Google Scholar
  4. Webster, W.P., W.K. Murray, W. Brinkhous & P. Hudson. 1986. Identification of human remains using photographic reconstruction, in K.J. Reichs (ed.) Forensic osteology: advances in the identification of human remains: 256-76. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas.Google Scholar
  5. Wilkinson, C. 2004. Forensic facial reconstruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Central Identification LaboratoryJoint POW/MIA Accounting CommandJoint Base Pearl Harbor-HickamUSA