I am a young sculptor and I find human anatomy to be very hard to get perfect but John Gurch did it perfectly. I would love to learn from someone like that with all the capabilities of making a strange human being. It looks like he literally had a time machine. Only if he had been a costume diredtor for the Planet of the Apes movies. I've never seen a more realistic looking peace of art, only if I could go to the Smithsonian and see it for real, in person. John Gurche, I truelly want to know how you do it!

The morphology and appearance of early humans must have been as varied as were the environments and climates in which they lived and reproduced. Natural selection came in the form of environmental contrition and cultural adaptations that insured able bodied progeny. The diversity in the monkey and ape populations of the world is testament to this phenomenon of specific and long term adaptations. These models are inaccurate in depicting this human diversity, but I have no doubt they have a very general (or should I say specific) legitimacy. I believe many groups of humans evolved along many different evolutionary time lines going back hundreds of thousands of years, and many phenotypes arose in parallel. In an attempt to codify, and with a small sampling, the tendency is to oversimplify what is uncertain and astoundingly complex. Time has permanently erased most of the evidence, leaving us with a very incomplete picture. Genetics reveal these many to have been reduced to as few as sixty at one time in the not to distant past. History is riddled with the unexpected.

It's too bad the reality of what a farce these are doesn't come into play. Consider "Lucy" - when it's stated that he "used this information to fill out the features of the fossils. Each sculpture starts with the cast of a fossilized skull" - that's pure fantasy, imagination, non-science. Just look at the actual bones that were found of "Lucy" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_(Australopithecus)

It takes QUITE a bit of imagination to fill out that skull - especially since there is NOT one. And let's not even go into the fact that some of those bones weren't even found in the same place. What a bunch of junk science this is.

We'll see if the Smithsonian even allows this comment to stand.

In March 2000 National Geographic commissioned four artists to sketch what they believed 2-million year old Homo habilis looked like from castings of seven bone fragments they were given to examine. Each artist produced radically different renditions all without body hair.

Give this simple test to paleoartists who recreate Neanderthals, etc. for museums:
Give them a skull of a person who died recently and ask them to recreate the face. The result will have no resemblance at all to the photograph of the real person.

One New York museum displays a life-sized diorama of two hairy homonids walking together in Africa based on a set of footprints!

Patrice Harper, some of these are women. Else were on the Smithsonian site it tells which ones are. did you assume thery were all male. The Florensis is female.

I agree with Charles only I say a couple of these guys hanging around 7-11's. It is strange how some of the facial features transcends time.

Sir: Earley Humanity apears to be dark skin so where did the white race come from?

The Afarensis,Boisei,Erectus and Florensis seem to be females.

The images are truly amazing.

Just a note on how accurate they might be, since some have suggested it is artistic license. . .

I don't know if Gurche has any background in forensics, but it is a common practice to reconstruct the appearance of skeletal remains in order to identify a person. Most of these reconstructed faces are quite close to the actual person. With a moderately complete skull, one can reconstruct with a high degree of accuracy muscle, skin, etc. It kind of stands to reason that the same could be done with these paleo-skulls (yes, I know that's not a word).

True, there are variables. We don't know exactly how fat is distrbuted in the faces of these individuals, but we can guess - so these are probably pretty close to the actual appearance of the species, if not the individual.

Beautiful work!

These renderings are too marvelous for words. I found myself staring and wondering, almost asking "Who are you?" It is sad that many among us have had their brains hijacked by hucksters. It is no small wonder that Americans are falling behind on the intellectual scale.

Thank you very much for these images.

Just loved these faces, after so many years of looking @ skulls and wondering what they must have really looked like.
THANK YOU SOOO MUCH! Cudos to the artist!

Perfectttt!

What a Wonderful concept to allow us in this time to see
how person's looked and in some cases lived their daily lives thousands of years ago.
I've been working on a story over the last couple of years and some of it takes place 20,000 years ago. As I have researched information about persons and their lives from this time it has taken on a much bigger roll in my story and my personal life. For instance, how did they communicate with each other, when did they have the understanding of a leader and followers, did they take care of their elderly? Viewing your magnificent images, makes everything more real!
It brings home how we may have lived and interacted with each other and our surroundings.
Best Regards,
Todd

This is pretty neat, but is kinda creepy, its funny to think about this stuff...

As someone else noted, the eyes are amazing. The earliest (A. afarensis) look at you like the higher apes at the zoo, eyes that recognize, feel emotion and sense the presence of similar, yet dangerous, hominids. Yet our nearest neighbors (chimps & bonobos)in evolution have also changed dramatically in over 4 million years and cannot really be compared to the "missing link" either.

There is a similar exhibit in the Neander Valley of Germany, where the Neanderthal bones and full-size recreation statues of our ancestors can be seen. They refer to neanderthalensis as a subspecies of H. sapiens. These studies make you want to live longer to find the next chapter.

If a large nose was needed to humidify and warm the cold, dry air Neanderthals were breathing, then why do the Inuit who live in Canada's Arctic have small to medium sized noses?

I just want to express my appreciation for the wonderful work that Mr. Gurche did. I too agree with Dr. Yusaf Al-Kindi. I know what I feel but would not know how to say it like he did.

John Gurche, a “paleo-artist,” has recreated strikingly realistic heads of our earliest human ancestors for a new exhibit ??

John Gurche, a “paleo-artist,” has created strikingly realistic heads for a new exhibit of how our earliest human ancestors may have appeared.

This is a beautiful collection, and wonderful insight into our collective past.

I Totally agree with Dr. Yusaf Al-Kindi. Further more one should look closely at Vincet Beauvoix's "Spaculum Majus"

I'm confident that at least 3 of the busts are female. And a theory is a set of ideas that set to explain known facts. Gravity is a fact and the theory of gravity set's out to explain how and what it is. Evolution is a fact and the theory of evolution is a set of ideas that try to explain the mechanism that causes change. People confuse theory with hypothesis.

"[Neanderthals] have really large noses, and some people have argued that this is to warm and humidify cold, dry air as it comes in."

Although the general theory of human evolution from apelike hominids cannot be rationally doubted, there is still a lot we don't know and about which we are forced to speculate. I was struck by the above quote from the artist because I have read that other paleoanthropologists argue that northern Han Chinese have small nostrils as an adaption to the cold of a mini ice age. Southeast Asians and other equatorial populations have bigger nostrils and more/larger sweat glands in order to dissipate heat. Northern Chinese, whose ancestors were apparently trapped up in the north by a mini ice age, have smaller nostrils and sweat glands to conserve heat.

I applaud what the artist is doing because it can inspire people to learn more. However, on the specifics we should exercise as much skepticism as should be brought to those ridiculous forensics procedurals on tv. Inspiration is not the same as knowledge. When he makes those models, the artist is making educated guesses. Those are a lot better than random guesses and archaic superstition (e.g. woman created from the rib of man?!) but they're still not going to be perfect.

My my these guys are very smart I wonder how they figured out that these apes had black skin brown eyes and very long and dark hair...they must have taken modern apes as examples..You know the ones that still around, Well they must be a monkey uncle.

John beat me to the punch. It seems that a few of the posters wishing for female renderings are applying modern facial characteristics of male and female, to ancient hominids.

I'm truly amazed by the number of people posting comments who are apparently familiar enough with hominid facial anatomy to determine gender.

I suggest an alternate theory could hinge on an overdeveloped sense of feminism.

Evolution is fact.

I offer up an online definition: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory

There is some confusion from lay folk who focus on the definition of theory as speculation. A theory really is a body of principles which predict or explain a set of phenomena. There are some anti-intellectual religious people in America, who are so threatened by using the brains God gave them, that they think that any acceptance of science will destroy their faith. I fully believe in a God, but know that God created a set of laws (gravity, strong force, weak force and electromagnetic forces) from which all other rules of physics and chemistry and hence biology and evolution derive. To study science, to study physics and to understand how we evolved is to understand the ultimate creator. Evolution is a fact. Period. To teach guided evolution, or any of those other silly, religious agenda variants is to deny empirical evidence and to insult the gift of reason which God gave you.

There is as much fiction as "science" in the recreation of past homonids, etc.

The ultimate gall is the creation of a full scale African diorama of tow homonids at The American Museum of Natural History based on a set of footprints!

I really need to visit the Smithsonian. Wonderfully done!

Thank you John! As a teacher I will use your exhibit to demonstrate to children something meaningful and poignant about human facial expressions as communication.

These faces say to me - we are ancient, with our own animal nobility, and our own primal intelligence.

Surely others can see how this exhibition of early humanity makes us part of creation, and shows us the way forward in consciousness, into love and respect for ourselves, and for each other.

In a course on Human Genetics, I read that the genes for the shape of the bridge of the nose and the nostrils are different. Looking at the Homo Sapien view, I could really see that the gene selection could be two distinct types. While looking at today's man, the nose and the nostril seem to merge together more. Very interesting about the nose comment in the article about adaptation to a colder environment. Great article.

Apparently our ancestors consisted of only males. I wonder how they reproduced?

"Aren't you confusing evolution and fact? I was taught that evolution was a theory, but not yet proven to be a fact."

It's a theory in the sense the gravity is a theory. Scientists use the word "theory" differently. Evolution is a very well-supported theory.

"Maybe next time you can include women in the series?"

I had that thought, too. (Juveniles would be nice as well.) Gurche did an amazing rendition of "Lucy" in this style, and I was lucky enough to see it in person at the SVP meeting in Denver. I've heard that that model unfortunately was damaged by heat, though. Not sure exactly.

"I took Paranthropus boisei to be female."

I'm pretty sure that's a male. Male and female skulls look quite different.

"Hasn't 'Lucy' been discredited of being in the human evolution line?"

That is an active question in paleoanthropology--we're not sure yet. If she's not from a species that's on our line, then she is still from a closely related species.

Aren't you confusing evolution and fact? I was taught that evolution was a theory, but not yet proven to be a fact. No matter which ideas you want to believe, Science is supposed to be such that those who will conduct experiments can be able to prove that their ideas are fact.

These examples are truly beautiful craftsmanship. The creator of these pieces of art is capable of producing very dramatic, life-like sculptures. But, at best, they only prove his talent is art, not fact.

Still, I find them eerily magnificent.

E. Woodford Sigler

A reasonably stated question deserves a reasonable answer. For your first question I would say, many theologians take "created in God's image" to be a statement about our insides, not our outward appearance.

For the second, this is trickier. Chimpanzees can think and make choices. What you're really asking, I gather, is do early hominids have souls? Well, first science needs to prove that we have souls! Over time hominids became more like us only gradually. Opinions differ on whether there is any point at which there's a dramatic change from them to us. The closest I can give you is that there is some evidence that homo sapiens idaltu was the first hominid to have religion and imagination and to be "fully modern." Others say that homo heidelbergensis (which came directly before them) had most of that already.

I am a practicing portrait artist. (means I am still learning) I love learning about the human face, & thelittle differences one wrongly placed line can make; it can changed the whole personality. I love your work. But now, I am thinking,"if God created man in his image,why is there such drastic changes in man down through the eons?" And when did God give us choices? Were cavemen thinking men,capable of decision-making?

I hope you don't find my questions stupid. My teachers always told me there is no such thing as a stupid question!Keep up your fantastic work. I really can learn from it. Being 7 6 years old is not too old to learn, is it??Sincerely

Dear Editors,
As a building reading consultant, I have had the pleasure of sharing my recent issues of Smithsonian Magazine with the staff. I have encouraged the entire staff to subscribe. Thank you!

Beverly Bunn, M.Ed.
Rhodes School

At the age of 21 I met an native NW American Indian girl whom was I was highly endearted to who one day told me in what was almost a frightened whisper about some legend named "Big foot".In NYC where I grew up I had never heard about "Big Foot"so I figured she was talking about some native folkloric being like JC so the whole subject just blew by me without a second thought.To make a long story short,about a year after her BF revelation to me,I came in direct contact with bigfoot and all I can say is that I was frozen with awe,daring not to even breath it seemed,but in this frozen moment there was a deep eye to eye comunication;in his eyes there was a look of supreme intelligence but most impressive was the look of scorn combined with a look of power I have never witnessed in any being.I'm 67 now and inretrospect I can realize why my young native friend seemed frighten.Some of these paleo renderings remind me of "BF" except for the eyes which are not nearly enough primitive,and threatening.Three things the eyes should be,primal,threatening,and perhaps intelligent depending on time of evolution.

What incredible talent to be able to give us a glimpse of what our predecessors looked like.

His ancestors may have looked like that but mine look like Robert Redford. Hasn't "Lucy" been discredited of being in the human evolution line?
Michael Calder

I know this guy!! He lives in Fresno, Ca.

Those pictures are absolutely fantastic! I am going to point interested parties to them.
Anne G

Evolution continues to amaze! Thanks for this exhibit.

I think that what Patrice was saying is that it would be interesting to see the males and females side-by-side for comparison, whatever the genders of these examples happen to be.

They are truly beautiful faces. The eyes have it, faces of expression and thought.

What amazingly beautiful sculptures! Like Lucy, I want to go see them in person.

Patrice, I took Paranthropus boisei to be female. Several of the others could easily be female also as modern female and male primates often look much the same with respect to facial features.

Wonderfully done!

Thanks,
Tara

Patrice: Given what I've seen of modern male and female apes, five out of the seven could easily *be* women. It's likely our male and female ancestors looked more alike than is (usually) the case now.

Wonderful work, in any case. The eyes are utterly compelling.

These are amazing. Maybe next time you can include women in the series?

The shape of the job and teeth seem to differentiate this common and from the others, including the Neanderthals. Is this accurate, or did Mr. Gurche adopt some creative license in drawing the face?

What an amazing amount of work and talent have gone into these busts. I think we need to plan a trip to DC to see them in real life.