Hominin representations in museum displays : their role in forming public understanding through the non-verbal communication of science.

Abstract

Key points: 71 institutions visited. 860 hominin representations assessed. Earlier hominins are treated differently from H. sapiens and often convey inaccurate scientific information. Hominin representations in museums and other displays have been used for well over a century to illustrate the people of the past. The popularity of archaeological and forensic facial reconstructions in the media ensures that they will be popular for some time to come. The aim of this work is to ascertain how hominin representations displayed in museums convey to the public interpretations of human evolution, variation and behaviour. These representations are a unique form of museum material culture as they are used as both part of the display and as an artefact that displays scientific knowledge from its era of manufacture. Various institutions (71) in 10 European countries and Australia were visited. Out of those, 55 hold altogether 860 life–sized and three–dimensional hominin representations. Ten representation types were identified: facial reconstructions (n=100), facial reconstructions on a body (n=92), casts (n=158), educational sculptures (n=104), museum mannequins (n=99), standard mannequins (n=87), portrait figures (n=147), medical models (n=27), costume dummies (n=31) and miscellaneous representations (n=15). These representations were found to be displayed in four different contexts: complete contexts (e.g., dioramas and tableaux), partial contexts (e.g., life–groups), in a series or as a solo figure. The terminology used to classify representations and their context was found to be inconsistent in both the museums and in the literature. The various taxa found included Kenyanthropus, Australopithecus and Homo species. The facial realism of these representations ranged from blank faces to highly detailed faces, which were also extremely realistic. The earlier hominin representations were more highly detailed than the H. sapiens representations, even though many of these details are unknown. Particular facial features (such as eyes, oral cavity and individual eyelashes and brows) were also found to increase the perceived realism of the representation. The body proportions of the earlier hominin taxa were found to be inconsistent within the various taxa and with scientific knowledge. Faces of the earlier hominins were found to be genus specific (i.e., Australopithecus and Homo) rather than species specific: essentially the representations looked either human or pre–human. There was also a range of biases in the sample, for example 66% of the representations were male and 70% were adults (approximately 20–40 years). These findings may enable museums to use hominin representations in the most effective way possible in terms of the intended purpose of the exhibition in which they feature, their expected audience and the museum's economic constraints.