My great-grandfather
MIKHAIL MIKHAILOVICH GERASIMOV
THE MAN WHO GAVE HISTORY ITS FACE BACK
Mikhail Mikhailovich Gerasimov (1907–1970) was a world-renowned anthropologist, archaeologist, sculptor, and the creator of the scientific method of forensic facial reconstruction.
ГЛАВНОЕ герасимов01.mp4📖 🔎
The territories of the ancient cities of Samarkand, Bukhara, Khiva, Uzbek SSR, Soviet Union
In May 1941, the Soviet government decided to open the grave of Timur and his relatives. ...the opening of Tamerlane's tomb, which had released the spirit of war. The anthropological study and excavation of the tomb were conducted by Doctor of History and Academician Anthropologist Mikhail Gerasimov.
второстепенное.mp4📖 🔎
Film dedicated to the 115th anniversary of Mikhail Gerasimov's birth
Mikhail Mikhailovich Gerasimov (1907-1970) was a world-renowned anthropologist, archaeologist, and sculptor who developed a method for plastic reconstruction of facial features...
главное.mp4📖 🔎
The uncovering of the tombs of Ivan the Terrible, his sons Ivan Ivanovich and Feodor Ivanovich, and Mikhail Vasilyevich Skopin-Shuisky in the Archangel Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin in 1963 sparked intense interest. Data was obtained that allows for further characterization of prominent Russian political figures from the second half of the 16th and early 17th centuries. This material still awaits scholarly description and publication. Only then will its significance be fully elucidated and the puzzling questions that researchers encountered during their work in the Archangel Cathedral be resolved. One of these questions is the unusual position of Ivan the Terrible's hand. According to M. M. Gerasimov, who studied the skeletal remains of Tsar Ivan and reconstructed his appearance, his right hand "did not rest, as is proper according to Christian custom, on his chest, crossed with the other hand, but was raised to his right shoulder. His left hand, however, retained its usual position." Coincidence? No. A few days later, when we opened the tomb of M. V. Skopin-Shuisky, we saw exactly the same picture. Time could not have played a role here: the deceased were tightly swaddled in a shroud and tied with a tourniquet over it. This cannot be explained by anatomical features either. During his life, Ivan's arm bent completely freely at the elbow, and the shoulder worked to its full extent. Meanwhile, no scholar has ever encountered such a burial rite. Obviously, this is some special rite, hitherto unknown to us, and historians have yet to understand it.
THE GREAT-GRANDSON’S PERSONAL TESTIMONY
MY GREAT-GRANDFATHER MIKHALYCH
Mikhail Mikhailovich Gerasimov was my great-grandfather on my mother’s side. For world science, he forever remained an outstanding anthropologist, archaeologist, sculptor, and creator of the scientific method for reconstructing a person’s outward appearance from the skull. However, in my memory, he has been preserved not only as a world-renowned scientist. I remember him as a living person—my great-grandfather, whom we called simply and affectionately within the family: Mikhalych.
Many decades have passed, but this familiar name continues to live in my memory. Behind it stands not the official portrait of a famous scientist, not an academic title, and not a museum bust, but a person whom I saw with my own eyes and whom I remember from childhood.
Mikhalych was a remarkable man. He possessed extraordinary inner energy and was almost always occupied. Work was not a separate part of his life—it was his life itself. I remember that he was almost never at home. He was constantly travelling: scientific assignments, archaeological expeditions, museums, laboratories, meetings with colleagues, investigations of historical burials, lectures, consultations, and work on new reconstructions.
He was always going somewhere, studying something, conducting research, measuring, comparing, and creating.
Home was probably, for him, a place of brief respite between successive journeys. Science required his presence in different cities and regions of an immense country. Archaeological sites could not be transferred to a Moscow office. Ancient burials were located in Siberia, Central Asia, the European part of the country, and far beyond its borders. Museum collections were dispersed among different institutions. In order to examine the remains of historical figures, it was necessary to travel personally to the relevant location, participate in the work of special commissions, study the condition of burials, and oversee the preservation of every object.
Mikhalych’s constant journeys were therefore not motivated by a desire to travel for its own sake. They were an integral part of his scientific responsibility.
I remember that he was always busy. Even when Mikhalych returned home for a short time, his thoughts probably remained with his work. New questions, unresolved scientific problems, and materials requiring examination were constantly before him. Each reconstruction required an enormous amount of time. It was necessary to examine the skull, determine its individual features, take numerous measurements, restore the muscles, determine the thickness of the soft tissues, create the sculptural foundation, and only after that proceed to the final appearance of the person.
Behind a single portrait that later appeared in a museum or historical publication stood months of intensive work.
A child is not always capable of understanding the scale of an adult’s work. What remains in childhood memory is movement, presence, rare meetings, and the sense that a close relative is constantly occupied with some immense and very important undertaking. Only years later does one come to understand what exactly filled that person’s life.
I now understand that Mikhalych’s constant activity was an expression of his devotion to science.
He did not regard research as an ordinary occupation that could be concluded at a particular hour. A scientific inquiry did not end when the working day was over. A question that had arisen accompanied the scientist until he found an answer, or at least a new path towards finding one.
It was precisely through such complete dedication that Mikhail Mikhailovich succeeded in accomplishing what no one before him had managed to transform into an integrated and scientifically verifiable system. He demonstrated that the human skull preserves a considerable amount of information concerning a person’s appearance during life and that, with profound anatomical knowledge, it is possible to reconstruct not an abstract type, but the individual features of a specific person.
This required not only talent and inspiration. It required decades of continuous work.
Mikhalych investigated archaeological sites, studied anatomical preparations, measured the thickness of soft tissues, analysed the points of muscular attachment, conducted control reconstructions, and compared the results with photographs taken during life. He repeatedly returned to the same problems, corrected inaccuracies, and improved his own method.
Such work could not have been performed by a person seeking easy success.
It revealed the principal qualities of Mikhail Mikhailovich: patience, powers of observation, diligence, scientific integrity, and the ability to devote himself completely to his chosen work.
Today, his name is associated with the reconstructions of Ivan the Terrible, Yaroslav the Wise, Andrei Bogolyubsky, Timur, Ulugh Beg, Admiral Fyodor Ushakov, the poet Rudaki, representatives of the earliest human populations, and numerous people whose names history has not preserved.
As a child, however, I did not perceive him as the creator of world-famous reconstructions. To me, he was Mikhalych—a close relative who could rarely be found at home because work, a journey, or an expedition was once again awaiting him.
Two different forms of memory come together here.
The first is public and scientific. It is preserved in books, museums, archives, laboratories, scientific articles, and the sculptural portraits he created.
The second is familial. It is not recorded in academic reference works. It consists of a personal recollection of a remarkable man who was constantly occupied with his work and was almost never at home.
It is especially important to me to preserve precisely this familial side of his image.
An official biography provides dates, positions, and the titles of scientific works. It states that Mikhail Mikhailovich was born in 1907, began engaging in archaeology in his youth, investigated the Palaeolithic site of Mal’ta, created the method of plastic reconstruction, founded a scientific laboratory, became a Doctor of Historical Sciences, and received state recognition.
But an official biography cannot fully convey the rhythm of his life.
It does not show how rarely his relatives saw him at home. It does not convey the sense of constant movement. It does not explain the price at which his scientific works and sculptural reconstructions were created. Behind every line in the list of his achievements stood long journeys, separation from his family, physically demanding expeditions, hours of anatomical research, and endless laboratory work.
My memory makes it possible to see this side of his life.
Mikhail Mikhailovich was not one of those academic scholars who investigate the world primarily through the descriptions of others. He sought to see an archaeological site personally, examine a discovery with his own hands, and independently verify every conclusion.
This was perhaps precisely why he travelled so often.
His scientific method likewise did not arise from an abstract assumption. It emerged from direct observation, from work with human remains, from knowledge of sculpture, and from a many-year effort to understand the relationship between the underlying bone structure and the living face.
Mikhalych trusted facts that could be studied, measured, and verified.
This characteristic determined not only the substance of his discoveries, but also his entire way of life. He did not wait for the necessary materials to appear before him. He travelled to the places where archaeological sites, burials, and museum collections were located.
He searched for answers at the site itself.
Today, distances are overcome much more easily. Digital archives, three-dimensional scanners, computer tomography, and electronic communication between scientific institutions are available. During Mikhail Mikhailovich’s lifetime, much required personal presence. Every journey took time, required preparation, and could take place under difficult living conditions.
Archaeological expeditions did not mean comfortable travel, but work in the open air, in heat, cold, rain, and wind. It was necessary to remove the earth carefully, layer by layer, record the position of discoveries, preserve the smallest fragments, and maintain detailed documentation. An error could destroy information that had remained buried in the ground for thousands of years.
Mikhalych understood this responsibility.
His constant activity was the price of scientific accuracy. He did not wish to be satisfied with an approximate result. He needed to verify his work, compare the data, and ensure that the portrait he created genuinely followed from the structure of the skull rather than from the sculptor’s imagination.
Such a person could not remain at home frequently or for long periods.
His family shared him with science, expeditions, museums, and the people of the past whose faces he restored.
This thought contains both pride and natural human sadness. Close relatives always wish to see a loved one beside them more often. Yet without such complete self-dedication, the great scientific legacy that today bears the name of Mikhail Mikhailovich Gerasimov might never have been created.
He gave science his strength, his time, and practically his entire life.
Mikhalych died on 21 July 1970. At that moment, the earthly life of a person ended, but his work did not. The Laboratory of Anthropological Reconstruction that he had founded continued its activities. His students refined the method. His books continued to be read. His portraits entered museum exhibitions, scientific publications, and textbooks.
Every time people look at the reconstructed appearance of Yaroslav the Wise, Ivan the Terrible, Timur, or an ancient human being, they see not only the face of a historical figure. They see the result of Mikhail Mikhailovich Gerasimov’s immense labour.
Yet behind all these famous portraits, I will always see the face of Mikhalych himself.
I remember him.
I remember a remarkable man who was always busy.
I remember that he was almost never at home because he was constantly travelling and participating in expeditions.
I remember him not from a book or a museum photograph. This is my own childhood memory of my great-grandfather.
Time gradually erases many details, but it preserves the essential impression of a person. In my memory, Mikhalych remained active, tireless, and completely devoted to his work.
That is what he was like during his lifetime.
That is how he must remain in our family and historical memory.
A MEMORY THAT NO ARCHIVE CAN REPLACE
A scientific archive preserves documents. A museum preserves sculptures. A library preserves books. A laboratory preserves a method and a professional tradition.
Only human memory, however, preserves presence.
No official document is capable of fully conveying what Mikhail Mikhailovich was like in everyday life. No biographical reference can replace the recollection of a close relative.
My testimony concerning Mikhalych is therefore not a secondary supplement, but an independent part of his biography.
I cannot and do not wish to invent what I do not remember. Family memory must be as honest as his scientific work was. I preserve what has genuinely remained with me: the familiar name Mikhalych, the memory of a remarkable man, his constant activity, and his uninterrupted journeys.
These simple recollections say more about him than may initially appear.
They show a person who did not separate himself from his calling. He did not merely engage in anthropology and archaeology. He lived through them.
They reveal the price of a great scientific legacy. Behind his famous discoveries stood a life in which almost no free time remained.
They demonstrate the scale of his personal responsibility. Mikhalych understood that every discovered bone, every archaeological site, and every reconstructed portrait required the greatest possible accuracy.
Finally, they show that the great scientist remained a close relative who was loved and awaited at home.
For world history, he is Mikhail Mikhailovich Gerasimov.
For me, he will forever remain Mikhalych—my great-grandfather on my mother’s side, a remarkable man whom I personally remember and whose memory I am obliged to preserve.
REVISED CONCLUSION OF THE ARTICLE
Mikhail Mikhailovich Gerasimov entered history as the man who restored a face to the past. He created a scientific method that made it possible to move from the silent skull to the probable appearance of a specific person during life.
But behind this great discovery stood a human life.
There stood Mikhalych—my great-grandfather, whom I remember.
He was a remarkable man, always occupied and completely devoted to his work. He could rarely be seen at home because he was constantly engaged in scientific journeys, assignments, and archaeological expeditions.
He restored faces to people of the past, giving this work his own time, strength, and life.
Decades have passed. Computer tomography, genetic research, three-dimensional modelling, and digital reconstruction have appeared. Yet the foundation he created has survived.
The scientific school he founded continues to exist.
His works continue to be published and studied.
The portraits he created continue to live.
Family memory continues to live.
Mikhail Mikhailovich Gerasimov therefore does not belong only to the past. He is present in contemporary anthropology, archaeology, criminalistics, museum practice, and the memory of his descendants.
For humanity, he remains a great scientist who restored a face to history.
For me, he remains my great-grandfather Mikhalych—a remarkable, tireless man whom I remember alive.
SECTION II
THE SCIENTIFIC WORK, ARCHAEOLOGICAL DISCOVERIES, AND GLOBAL LEGACY OF MIKHAIL MIKHAILOVICH GERASIMOV
Anthropology, Archaeology, Palaeoethnology, Plastic Reconstruction, Criminalistics, and the Creation of a Scientific School
I. THE SCALE OF MIKHAIL GERASIMOV’S SCIENTIFIC PERSONALITY
Mikhail Mikhailovich Gerasimov entered the history of world science primarily as the creator of the method of plastic reconstruction of a person’s outward appearance from the skull. It would, however, be incorrect to reduce all his work solely to the creation of sculptural portraits of historical figures.
He was simultaneously:
a field archaeologist;
a researcher of the Palaeolithic, Mesolithic, and Neolithic periods;
a specialist in the archaeology of the Cis-Baikal region and Eastern Siberia;
a palaeoethnologist;
a physical anthropologist;
a researcher of the human skull and the soft tissues of the face;
a sculptor;
a restorer;
the author of fundamental scientific monographs;
an expert on historical burials;
a participant in criminalistic investigations;
the founder of a laboratory of plastic reconstruction;
the creator of an independent scientific school;
a teacher of several generations of archaeologists and anthropologists.
His scientific work was located at the intersection of disciplines that, before him, had largely developed separately. Archaeology studied the material traces of ancient cultures. Anthropology investigated human structure. Anatomy described muscles and tissues. Craniology dealt with the form and dimensions of the skull. Sculpture reproduced human appearance. Criminalistics sought to solve the problem of personal identification.
Gerasimov united these fields within a single research system.
He considered human remains not in isolation, but in connection with an archaeological site, a historical period, the physical characteristics of a population, the conditions of life, and the individual features of a person.
His scientific legacy is therefore much broader than the gallery of portraits he created. It includes archaeological discoveries, field-research methodology, the reconstruction of ancient dwellings and technologies, the development of a periodisation of the Stone Age, the study of historical burials, the creation of an anthropological methodology, and the education of scientific successors.
A detailed contemporary assessment of his archaeological work is presented in the article by N. E. Berdnikova and E. A. Lipnina, “Faces of the Irkutsk School of Archaeology: Mikhail Mikhailovich Gerasimov”, published by Irkutsk State University in 2022.
II. THE IRKUTSK SCHOOL OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND THE FORMATION OF A RESEARCHER
Mikhail Gerasimov’s scientific worldview took shape in Irkutsk under the influence of the school of Professor Bernhard Eduardovich Petri.
This school emerged at Irkutsk State University soon after the university opened in 1918. Its most important characteristic was interdisciplinarity. The investigation of an archaeological site included the study of:
the geological structure of the locality;
ancient fauna;
stratigraphy;
stone and bone implements;
burial rites;
anthropological remains;
natural conditions;
the possible economic organisation of an ancient population.
Petri and his students sought not merely to collect ancient objects. Their task was to reconstruct a complete picture of the life of vanished societies.
This approach subsequently became the foundation of Gerasimov’s scientific method. He learned to see a human being behind an archaeological discovery and, behind a human skull, an individual life associated with a particular period and culture.
Biographical sources differ in dating Gerasimov’s earliest participation in archaeological work. Certain museum materials state that, from approximately the age of eleven, he was already present at excavations conducted under Petri’s direction. The official biographical reference of the Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology of the Russian Academy of Sciences dates the beginning of his systematic scientific activity to the age of fifteen.
These accounts are not necessarily contradictory. As a child, Gerasimov may have been present at individual excavations and become acquainted with archaeology, while from 1922 onwards he participated in research on a more systematic basis.
During the 1920s, he took part in the activities of scientific and local-history organisations in Irkutsk:
the Ethnology Circle;
the Friends of the Museum association;
the Palaeoethnological Section of the East Siberian Branch of the Russian Geographical Society;
the Archaeological Section of the East Siberian Local-History Society;
the Irkutsk Scientific Museum.
Bernhard Petri referred to the young Gerasimov as his closest associate. This indicates that Mikhail Mikhailovich very early ceased to be only a student and became a full participant in field and post-excavation research.
Post-excavation research is the work conducted after excavations have been completed: the cleaning, description, drawing, classification, measurement, and scientific interpretation of recovered materials. Thus, while still young, Gerasimov mastered the entire cycle of archaeological investigation—from the discovery of a site to the publication of its results.
III. THE FIRST ARCHAEOLOGICAL WORKS
1. The Burials of Kayskaya Gora
In 1922 or 1923, Mikhail Gerasimov investigated a Neolithic burial on Kayskaya Gora near St Nicholas Church.
In 1926, several additional burials were excavated at this location. These early investigations allowed the young archaeologist to acquire practical experience in working with human remains.
When examining a burial, an archaeologist must record not only the position of the skeleton, but also:
the orientation of the body;
the depth of the burial;
the condition of the bones;
the position of the arms and legs;
associated objects;
traces of the burial structure;
the characteristics of the soil;
the spatial relationship among all discoveries.
Disturbing the original position of remains without first recording it destroys historical information. Work with burials therefore required exceptional care from the young Gerasimov.
The experience he acquired subsequently became important for his participation in the investigations of the burials of well-known historical figures.
2. The Glazkovo Necropolis and the Cyclodrome
During the 1920s, Gerasimov excavated ancient burials within Irkutsk, including sites known as the Cyclodrome, or Lokomotiv, and the Resettlement Centre.
He investigated several burials on the territory of the Cyclodrome. Using one of the skulls discovered during the 1929 excavations, Gerasimov produced a reconstruction of the appearance of a Neolithic person.
This was one of the earliest attempts to apply his developing method not to a conventional image of Pithecanthropus or a Neanderthal, but to a specific individual from an archaeological burial.
Two directions of his future work were already being combined in these investigations:
1. the archaeological study of a burial;
2. the anthropological reconstruction of the buried individual’s appearance.
3. The Resettlement Centre
In 1924–1925, Gerasimov investigated a Palaeolithic locality near the Resettlement Centre in Irkutsk.
Stone tools and remains of ancient fauna were discovered there. The materials demonstrated that human beings had inhabited the Irkutsk region in remote antiquity.
In 1926, Mikhail Gerasimov published his first scientific article, devoted to the Palaeolithic discoveries from the Resettlement Centre. Thus, before reaching the age of twenty, he had completed the entire path from independent field research to scientific publication.
This work became his first serious test of professional maturity.
IV. RESEARCH IN THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST AND THE ANGARA REGION
In 1927–1928, Gerasimov discovered and investigated several Stone Age sites.
They included:
the Osinovka locality near Khabarovsk;
the Ust-Belaya site on the Angara;
burials near Irkutsk;
the Palaeolithic site of Mal’ta.
The investigation of Osinovka expanded the geographical scope of his scientific work to the Russian Far East. The young archaeologist compared the stone industries of different regions and sought to understand the sequence of development of the earliest cultures of Northern Asia.
Ust-Belaya was of particular importance. It was subsequently established that this was a multilayered site: it preserved cultural horizons from the Stone Age through later periods.
A multilayered site is exceptionally valuable to archaeology. Each cultural horizon represents a particular period of settlement. The correct study of the sequence of layers makes it possible to establish a relative chronology and trace changes in material culture.
In 1937, Gerasimov conducted excavations at Ust-Belaya over an area of approximately seventy square metres. He used a combination of different techniques for exposing the cultural layer, adapting the excavation method to the condition of the soil and the density of the archaeological material.
This ability to modify a method according to the specific situation was an important characteristic of Gerasimov as a field archaeologist. He did not regard archaeological methodology as an immutable set of instructions. For him, a method had to serve the preservation and understanding of the site.
V. THE DISCOVERY OF THE PALAEOLITHIC SITE OF MAL’TA
1. The Beginning of the Investigation
The discovery and investigation of the Palaeolithic site of Mal’ta became a turning point in Mikhail Gerasimov’s scientific biography.
In 1928, a report arrived from the village of Mal’ta, situated on the Belaya River, concerning the discovery of a mammoth bone. The young employee of the Irkutsk Museum, Mikhail Gerasimov, was sent to the site.
The discovered tusk proved to be only the first indication of an immense archaeological complex.
Gerasimov quickly understood that he was dealing not with an isolated palaeontological discovery, but with an ancient human settlement.
By this time, Bernhard Petri already regarded his student as a trained specialist and entrusted him with the independent investigation of the site. Petri participated in the earliest work and photographed the exposed complexes, but primary responsibility for the excavations was entrusted to Gerasimov.
Research was conducted in 1928, 1929, 1930, and 1932, and was subsequently continued in 1934 and 1937. After a lengthy interruption, Gerasimov returned to Mal’ta in 1956–1958.
2. The Archaeological Significance of Mal’ta
Mal’ta became one of the most important Upper Palaeolithic sites in Northern Asia.
The following were discovered at the site:
stone tools;
objects made of bone and mammoth ivory;
needles and awls;
ornaments;
pendants;
decorated objects;
representations of birds;
female figurines;
remains of dwellings;
hearths;
bones of ancient animals;
a child’s burial.
Gerasimov’s academic obituary stated that approximately two thousand worked stones were discovered at the site, together with numerous examples of bone working and ornament production. Mikhail Gerasimov’s academic obituary was published in 1970 and contains a detailed assessment of his work.
The Mal’ta female figurines, carved primarily from mammoth ivory, became especially famous.
They are often referred to as “Palaeolithic Venuses,” but they differ from many European statuettes. Some Mal’ta figurines have clearly indicated faces, hairstyles or headdresses, and elements of clothing.
Gerasimov considered these objects not only works of ancient art, but also sources of information concerning the worldview, clothing, and artistic conceptions of Palaeolithic people.
3. Representations of Birds
The discoveries included small representations of flying birds with elongated necks and extended wings.
These objects testified to the highly developed observational abilities of ancient artisans. They were capable of conveying movement and an animal’s characteristic features within a very limited volume of bone material.
The birds, female figurines, ornaments, and decorations showed that the inhabitants of Mal’ta possessed developed symbolic thought.
The site therefore provided information not only about economic life, but also about the spiritual culture of Palaeolithic people.
4. The Dwellings of Mal’ta’s Ancient Inhabitants
Gerasimov devoted considerable attention to the remains of dwellings.
He examined the arrangement of stones, the bones of large animals, hearths, and cultural material. On the basis of this evidence, attempts were made to reconstruct the design of ancient structures.
At different stages, Gerasimov distinguished several types of dwellings. He considered the possible existence of:
sunken structures;
light surface-level dwellings;
structures resembling a chum, or conical tent;
temporary seasonal shelters.
As evidence accumulated, he refined his initial conclusions. This demonstrates scientific integrity: a researcher is not obliged to defend an initial hypothesis throughout his entire life if new materials require it to be revised.
5. The Experimental Study of Bone Working
Mikhail Gerasimov sought to understand how ancient craftspeople worked bone and mammoth ivory.
It was not sufficient merely to classify finished objects. It was necessary to reproduce experimentally the possible technological operations:
splitting;
cutting;
polishing;
drilling;
applying ornamentation;
shaping the surface.
Experimental archaeology makes it possible to determine what kind of tool could have left a particular trace and how much time was required to manufacture an object.
Gerasimov set out the results of his research in the work “Bone Working at the Palaeolithic Site of Mal’ta.”
This approach went far beyond the simple collection of antiquities. Gerasimov attempted to reconstruct the technological thought of Palaeolithic human beings.
6. The Scale of the Fieldwork
During the investigations at Mal’ta, Gerasimov moved away from using only narrow excavation squares and began exposing large areas.
A broad exposure made it possible to see the spatial relationship among dwellings, hearths, economic zones, and concentrations of finds. It was precisely this spatial organisation that made it possible to discuss the structure of the settlement.
He combined broad exposure with more detailed clearing of individual areas.
Contemporary researchers note that Gerasimov refined his excavation techniques according to the distinctive characteristics of the site. This is discussed in detail in the study published by Irkutsk State University.
7. Mal’ta in World Archaeology
The discoveries at Mal’ta attracted the attention of Soviet and foreign archaeologists.
The finds demonstrated that the inhabitants of Siberia during the Upper Palaeolithic created complex dwellings, sophisticated tools, and highly accomplished artistic objects. Previously, many comparable works of ancient art had been known primarily from sites in Western and Central Europe.
Mal’ta required scholars to reassess the cultural development of the ancient population of Northern Asia.
Today, the site is associated with the so-called Mal’ta–Buret’ archaeological tradition. It must, however, be clarified that the Buret’ site was primarily investigated by Alexey Pavlovich Okladnikov. Gerasimov visited the excavations at Buret’ and compared the materials obtained there with Mal’ta, but he should not be credited with the sole discovery of every site belonging to the Mal’ta–Buret’ complex.
8. The Mal’ta Child and Modern Archaeogenetics
Children’s remains occupied a special place among the Mal’ta discoveries.
Many decades later, developments in molecular genetics made it possible to examine the genome of a person who had lived there approximately 24,000 years ago. In international literature, this individual received the designation MA-1.
The investigation demonstrated complex genetic relationships between the ancient population of Northern Eurasia and later populations of Eurasia and the ancestors of the Indigenous peoples of the Americas.
The work of the international research group was published in the journal Nature. The full scientific text is available through PubMed Central.
Gerasimov could not have had access to ancient DNA-analysis technologies. Yet without the excavations he conducted, his documentation of the burial, and the preservation of the material, this discovery might never have been made.
Mal’ta is a striking example of how high-quality archaeological work performed by one generation creates the foundation for discoveries made by scholars eighty or ninety years later.
VI. SURVEY WORK IN THE BELAYA RIVER VALLEY
In 1929, Mikhail Gerasimov conducted a large-scale archaeological survey in the Belaya River valley.
According to contemporary researchers, he discovered approximately thirty archaeological sites.
Known names include:
Uzky Lug;
Kamenolomnya;
U melnitsy;
Kamen;
Badai;
Cheremushnik;
Ust-Belaya;
sites near the village of Khaita.
An archaeological survey requires the examination of a large area, the description of the terrain, the recording of exposed cultural layers, the collection of surface material, and the identification of promising locations for future excavation.
The discovery of such a large number of sites testifies to the immense volume of his fieldwork.
Gerasimov did not merely investigate a single famous site. He was creating an archaeological map of an entire region.
His manuscript “The Palaeolithic of the Irkutsk District” was prepared in the same year, 1929. Although it did not acquire the same fame as his later monographs, it demonstrates the scale of his early scientific plans.
VII. THE FOFANOVO BURIAL GROUND
The investigation of the Fofanovo burial ground near the mouth of the Selenga River occupied an important place in Gerasimov’s archaeological work.
Research was conducted in 1931, then in 1934–1936, and was resumed in 1959.
The Fofanovo burial ground contained burials from different periods—from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age.
In 1959, Gerasimov participated in the Baikal Expedition directed by Mikhail Petrovich Gryaznov. Forty-one burials dating from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age were investigated over an area of approximately 1,400 square metres.
This was an immense complex in terms of scale.
The study of a multiperiod burial ground made it possible to analyse:
changes in burial rites;
the positioning of bodies;
the composition of burial goods;
differences among male, female, and child burials;
the physical characteristics of the population;
the succession of archaeological cultures;
possible continuity among different groups.
Materials from the Fofanovo burial ground were used for anthropological studies and reconstructions of the appearance of the ancient population of Transbaikalia.
Gerasimov and E. N. Chernykh’s report on the 1959 excavations was subsequently published in the collection The Prehistoric Archaeology of Siberia.
VIII. EXPEDITIONS BEYOND THE CIS-BAIKAL REGION
After moving to Leningrad, the geographical scope of Mikhail Gerasimov’s archaeological work expanded considerably.
He participated in investigations of:
the North Caucasus;
the Kostenki Palaeolithic sites;
the Oka River valley;
the Abakan River basin;
Samarkand;
Crimea;
the Staroselie site;
historical burials in Kyiv, Vladimir, and Moscow.
In 1932, he worked in the North Caucasus.
In 1933, he participated in research at Kostenki—one of the most important complexes of Palaeolithic sites in Eastern Europe.
In 1935, he worked in the future flooding zone in the Oka River valley.
In 1936, he took part in a State Hermitage Museum expedition in the Abakan River valley.
These journeys explain what remained in the personal memory of his great-grandson: Mikhalych was constantly travelling. The geography of his work genuinely encompassed an immense territory.
Moreover, he often participated not only in the anthropological examination of remains that had already been removed, but also directly in the excavations. It was important to him to see personally the position of the skeleton and its archaeological context.
IX. CONTRIBUTION TO THE PERIODISATION OF THE STONE AGE
Mikhail Gerasimov was engaged not only in the discovery and description of sites. He sought to establish a historical sequence of archaeological cultures.
During the first half of the twentieth century, precise radiocarbon-dating methods were not yet in use. Archaeologists constructed relative chronologies on the basis of:
stratigraphy;
types of tools;
stone-working technology;
ceramic forms;
burial rites;
comparisons with other sites.
Gerasimov proposed his own periodisation scheme for the sites of the Angara and Yenisei regions.
Contemporary researchers note that he was among the first scholars in Siberia to distinguish the Mesolithic as an independent phase of the Stone Age. Certain European terms used by him were subsequently revised, but the attempt to identify an intermediate period between the Palaeolithic and Neolithic was itself of great importance.
His position in the debate concerning the chronology of the Neolithic in the Cis-Baikal region was especially significant.
Gerasimov believed that the Kitoi stage belonged to the Early Neolithic and preceded subsequent phases. Alexey Okladnikov placed these burials at a later date.
The dispute was resolved only decades later, after radiocarbon dates became available. They confirmed that Gerasimov had been correct in determining the early date of the Kitoi burials.
The history of this scientific dispute is examined in detail in the article “The Neolithic of the Cis-Baikal Region: The History of a Debate”.
This example demonstrates the strength of his scientific intuition. Without modern laboratory methods, he succeeded in correctly assessing the relative antiquity of the archaeological complexes.
X. REPRESSIONS AGAINST THE IRKUTSK SCIENTIFIC SCHOOL
The year 1937 became a tragic dividing line for the Irkutsk school of archaeology.
Bernhard Petri and several researchers associated with him were subjected to political repression. Many were executed.
Mikhail Gerasimov also found himself in a dangerous position. A contemporary scientific article from Irkutsk State University cites recollections concerning the existence of a denunciation against him. The circumstances of this episode, however, are known primarily from oral testimony and must therefore be presented cautiously.
Another fact is established by documentary evidence: the destruction of Petri’s school shattered the scientific environment in which Gerasimov had been formed.
The names of repressed teachers could be deleted from manuscripts of that period. Scholars were compelled to remain silent about the people to whom they owed their professional formation.
After 1937, physical anthropology and the development of the method of plastic reconstruction became the principal direction of Mikhail Gerasimov’s work.
He did not, however, abandon the traditions of the Irkutsk school. During the 1950s, he transmitted those traditions to a new generation of young archaeologists.
XI. RETURN TO IRKUTSK AND THE EDUCATION OF A NEW GENERATION
In 1956, nineteen years after the conclusion of his pre-war work, Mikhail Gerasimov returned to Irkutsk.
He had been invited to conduct research in the future flooding zone of the Bratsk Reservoir.
The construction of large hydroelectric power stations threatened to submerge immense territories. Archaeologists had to discover, investigate, and rescue within a short period the sites that were soon to disappear beneath the water.
An archaeological and stratigraphic detachment was formed within a geological and palaeontological expedition. Mal’ta and Ust-Belaya became its principal sites.
From 1957 onwards, students from Irkutsk State University participated in the work:
Vitaly Svinin;
German Medvedev;
Mikhail Aksyonov;
Galina Zaitseva;
Pavel Konovalov;
other young researchers.
For them, the excavations under Gerasimov’s direction became a genuine school of fieldwork.
His principle of leadership was expressed in the words: “not to command, but to advise.”
He sought not to suppress a student’s initiative, but to teach the student to see the archaeological object independently and make well-founded decisions.
At the excavation, every participant had to be capable of performing different kinds of work:
conducting careful clearing;
recording finds;
preparing drawings;
taking photographs;
describing layers;
handling bone material;
maintaining a field diary;
participating in post-excavation processing.
By 1959, Gerasimov’s students were already capable of conducting independent research at Ust-Belaya and other sites.
Until his death, Mikhail Mikhailovich remained the effective scientific mentor of the young Irkutsk archaeologists.
He therefore restored the continuity of the scientific school that had been destroyed in 1937.
XII. THE ORIGIN OF THE IDEA OF RECONSTRUCTING THE FACE FROM THE SKULL
Mikhail Gerasimov’s principal scientific discovery arose directly from his archaeological work.
During excavations, he found tools, ornaments, dwellings, and works of ancient art. Yet he was interested in the person who had created those objects.
He wished to see not a conventional “prehistoric human,” but the specific creator of an ancient culture.
The idea of reconstructing the face from the skull had existed before Gerasimov. During the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, individual anatomists and sculptors had made similar attempts.
Earlier works, however, were frequently based upon:
averaged conceptions;
free artistic interpretation;
an insufficient number of anatomical observations;
reproduction of a general anthropological type rather than an individual face.
Gerasimov’s achievement did not consist in the first appearance of the idea itself, but in transforming it into a comprehensive, empirically verifiable, and practically applicable method.
XIII. THE FIRST RECONSTRUCTIONS
In 1927, the twenty-year-old Gerasimov created reconstructions of Pithecanthropus and a Neanderthal for the Irkutsk Museum.
He subsequently treated these works critically and acknowledged that they represented only an initial stage of research.
In 1929, a reconstruction of a Neolithic person from a burial at the Cyclodrome was created.
The young researcher gradually moved from depicting a general type of ancient human being towards the objective of achieving individual portrait resemblance.
Resolving this problem required the establishment of:
how the thickness of soft tissues related to the relief of the skull;
how the position of the eyes could be reconstructed;
how the bony foundation influenced the form of the nose;
what determined the width of the mouth;
how the face changed with age;
which features reflected muscular development;
where objective reconstruction ended and artistic supposition began.
According to Gerasimov’s own recollections, the path to the first satisfactory portrait reconstruction took approximately eleven years.
XIV. ANATOMICAL RESEARCH
In order to provide a scientific foundation for his method, Gerasimov conducted numerous anatomical investigations.
He studied:
the structure of the muscles of the head;
their attachment points;
the thickness of soft tissues;
the relationship between surface relief and the underlying bone structure;
the anatomy of the eye region;
the structure of the nose;
the form of the lips;
age-related facial changes;
differences among male, female, and child skulls;
individual asymmetry.
Dissection and the measurement of soft tissues were especially important.
Gerasimov examined human heads and compared the form of the face with the skull beneath it. He recorded the thickness of tissues at specific anatomical points.
A large body of empirical material was gradually assembled.
The contemporary head of the Laboratory of Anthropological Reconstruction, Elizaveta Veselovskaya, emphasises that Gerasimov created an algorithm for moving from the morphology of a particular skull to the person’s appearance during life. This is discussed in the interview “Reconstructing the Face from the Skull: The Gerasimov Method Today”.
XV. CONTROL EXPERIMENTS
The scientific value of the method was determined by the possibility of testing it.
Gerasimov reconstructed the faces of people whose photographs taken during life existed, but which were not shown to him until the work was completed.
After the portrait had been completed, the result was compared with the photograph.
Control investigations made it possible to assess:
the general proportions of the face;
the form of the forehead;
the position of the eyes;
the width of the cheekbones;
the shape of the chin;
the profile of the nose;
asymmetry;
the degree of individual resemblance.
Where discrepancies arose, Gerasimov returned to the anatomical material and refined the method.
During the late 1930s, a series of control experiments was conducted using modern material. The results showed that the structure of the skull genuinely made it possible to reconstruct a considerable proportion of the face’s individual features.
The official transcript of a 1957 meeting of the Academic Council of the Institute of Ethnography noted that, even before the war, Gerasimov had been engaged by investigative authorities to carry out specific assignments. The nature of these assignments was not disclosed in detail.
It is therefore possible to speak of the early practical application of the method in criminalistics, but there is no basis for attributing to Gerasimov participation in every criminal case later associated with his name.
XVI. THE PRINCIPAL STAGES OF PLASTIC RECONSTRUCTION
The Gerasimov method included several successive stages.
1. Examination of Preservation
Before reconstruction began, the condition of the skull was determined.
The following were recorded:
missing fragments;
cracks;
post-mortem deformation;
damage caused during burial;
traces of restoration;
changes associated with disease and trauma.
Missing symmetrical parts could be restored on the basis of the preserved opposite side.
2. Determination of the Biological Profile
The researcher determined the probable:
sex;
age;
physical characteristics;
degree of muscular development;
dental condition;
bite;
pathological changes.
Gerasimov’s historical anthropological terminology included conceptions of racial types characteristic of the science of his period. Contemporary anthropology approaches such classifications far more cautiously and employs more complex population models.
This requires historical context, but it does not invalidate the scientist’s morphological observations.
3. Creation of a Copy of the Skull
A precise plaster copy was made in order to protect the original remains.
The principal plastic reconstruction was carried out on this copy.
4. Reproduction of the Muscles
One of the distinctive features of the Russian anatomical method was the successive reconstruction of the muscles.
The following were taken into account:
points of attachment;
the direction of the muscle fibres;
the prominence of the bony relief;
the development of the masticatory apparatus;
the overall robustness of the skeleton.
5. Application of Soft-Tissue Depths
The estimated thickness of the soft tissues was established at specific locations.
Gerasimov did not rely solely upon averaged values. He sought to take account of the individual features of the particular skull.
6. Reconstruction of the Eyes
The position of the eyeball was determined by the structure of the orbit.
The form of the eyelids depended upon the orbital margins, the positions of the inner and outer corners of the eye, and the structure of the bridge of the nose.
7. Reconstruction of the Nose
The nose is one of the most difficult regions because a significant part of it is formed by cartilage.
Gerasimov investigated the relationship between the form of the external nose and:
the nasal bones;
the piriform aperture;
the anterior nasal spine;
the profile of the middle facial region.
After Gerasimov’s death, his student Galina Lebedinskaya continued research into the nasal region and refined several rules.
8. Reconstruction of the Mouth and Lips
The position of the oral fissure and the width of the mouth were correlated with the dental arches and jaws.
The bite influenced the profile of the lips and the lower part of the face.
The precise fullness of the lips, however, remains one of the most variable characteristics, and particular caution is therefore required in this area.
9. Formation of the Skin and Overall Relief
After the reconstruction of the muscles and principal parts of the face, the layer of soft tissue was modelled.
The following areas were refined:
the forehead;
the temples;
the cheeks;
the nasolabial region;
the chin;
the neck.
10. Historical Presentation
The hairstyle, head covering, facial hair, and clothing cannot be determined from the skull.
They are reconstructed on the basis of archaeological, written, ethnographic, and visual sources.
It is therefore necessary to distinguish anatomical reconstruction from historical and artistic presentation.
A fundamental description of the method is contained in Gerasimov’s book The Reconstruction of the Face from the Skull, published by the Academy of Sciences of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in 1955.
XVII. PORTRAIT RECONSTRUCTION AND CRIMINALISTICS
In criminalistic practice, facial reconstruction is applied when unidentified human remains have been discovered and no other direct information concerning the person’s identity is available.
The created image may:
be published;
be compared with photographs of missing persons;
be shown to relatives and witnesses;
help determine the direction of the search;
narrow the circle of possible identities.
A reconstruction is not, however, definitive proof of identity.
It does not replace:
genetic examination;
dental comparison;
examination of medical implants;
analysis of trauma;
documentation of the provenance of the remains;
verification of the circumstances of discovery.
The contemporary laboratory that continues Gerasimov’s work emphasises that complete identification must be based upon genetic data.
This does not diminish the value of the method. Its purpose is not to deliver a final verdict, but to transform a nameless skull into an image that may be recognised and may direct an investigation towards new evidence.
XVIII. RECONSTRUCTIONS OF THE EARLIEST HUMANS
Gerasimov created an extensive gallery of representatives of ancient humanity.
It included reconstructions of:
Pithecanthropus;
different Neanderthals;
Cro-Magnons;
Neolithic people;
representatives of the Bronze Age;
the populations of ancient European and Asian cultures.
Scientific conceptions of human origins have changed considerably since the 1920s–1960s. New discoveries, genetic data, and refined taxonomies have appeared.
Individual evolutionary interpretations proposed by Gerasimov must therefore be considered as part of the science of his time.
His anatomical approach nevertheless exerted an immense influence upon the visualisation of ancient humans.
Before such reconstructions, Neanderthals were frequently portrayed as crude, semi-animal beings. Gerasimov sought to proceed from specific anatomy rather than from the assumption of obligatory primitiveness.
XIX. THE CHILD FROM THE TESHIK-TASH GROTTO
In 1938, fragments of a skull and parts of a child’s skeleton were discovered in the Teshik-Tash grotto within the territory of present-day Uzbekistan.
The remains were severely fragmented. Gerasimov carried out a complex restoration of the skull, assembling it from numerous separate pieces.
After restoring the underlying bony structure, he created a sculptural reconstruction of the child’s appearance.
This reconstruction became one of the best-known works in palaeoanthropology. It was reproduced in scientific works, museum catalogues, and textbooks.
Gerasimov also created a full-figure version.
The exhibit is held by the State Darwin Museum, which provides official information concerning the reconstruction of the child from Teshik-Tash.
Contemporary researchers continue to debate the position of the Teshik-Tash child within evolutionary taxonomy. The historical significance of Gerasimov’s work as a restorer and sculptor nevertheless remains beyond doubt.
XX. YAROSLAV THE WISE
One of the first famous portrait reconstructions was the appearance of Prince Yaroslav the Wise.
The work was carried out using the skull from the burial in Saint Sophia Cathedral in Kyiv.
The skull had been damaged. Before reconstructing the soft tissues, Gerasimov had to restore the missing bony areas. Symmetry was used for this purpose: the preserved side made it possible to reconstruct the missing side.
After restoration of the skull, the principal proportions of the face were determined.
In 1940, Gerasimov published the work “An Attempt to Reconstruct the Physical Appearance of Yaroslav the Wise.”
The prince’s portrait became extremely widespread and effectively formed the principal visual image of Yaroslav the Wise in Soviet and post-Soviet historical culture.
A description of the museum object and its scientific interpretation is available in the catalogue of the Kunstkamera.
The subsequent fate of the remains associated with Yaroslav the Wise later became the subject of separate investigations. It is therefore necessary to distinguish the quality of the reconstruction from the question of the subsequent custody and provenance of particular skeletal materials.
XXI. ANDREI BOGOLYUBSKY
Gerasimov examined the remains of Prince Andrei Bogolyubsky and created his sculptural portrait.
The prince’s bones preserved traces of numerous injuries connected with his violent death.
His appearance during life was reconstructed from the skull, while the historical characterisation was supplemented with information concerning the prince’s ancestry.
Certain anthropological formulations used by Gerasimov concerning supposedly “Mongoloid” features subsequently became the subject of scientific debate.
Contemporary studies offer different assessments of individual morphological features. This does not mean that the entire sculptural work was arbitrary. It is necessary to distinguish among:
the directly reconstructed form of the face;
the anthropological classification;
the historical explanation of the origin of the features.
Scientific terminology and population concepts may be revised, whereas the measurements performed and the anatomical reconstruction retain independent research value.
XXII. TIMUR AND THE TIMURID DYNASTY
In 1941, Mikhail Gerasimov participated in a governmental expedition investigating the Gur-e-Amir mausoleum in Samarkand.
The expedition’s objectives included:
verifying the identity of the burials;
examining the funerary rite;
anthropological study of the remains;
determining age and physical characteristics;
identifying familial relationships;
creating sculptural portraits.
The remains of Timur, his sons, and his grandsons, including Shah Rukh, Miran Shah, and Ulugh Beg, were examined.
The examination of Timur’s skeleton confirmed the presence of serious injuries to the limbs that may have been connected with the lameness described in historical sources.
Gerasimov reconstructed a massive face, broad cheekbones, and other characteristics that he associated with Timur’s descent from the Barlas clan.
At the same time, the examination of several representatives of one dynasty made it possible to compare familial features.
A detailed museum account of the expedition and the reconstructions is provided by the State Darwin Museum in the article “A Genius of Scientific Restoration”.
The Legend of the “Curse of Tamerlane”
The opening of the tomb took place shortly before Germany’s attack upon the Soviet Union. A legend subsequently arose linking these events.
There is, of course, no documented causal connection between the opening of the burial and the beginning of the war.
The expedition had been prepared for scientific and governmental reasons. The legend forms part of later popular culture, but it must not replace the actual substance of Gerasimov’s work.
XXIII. ADMIRAL FYODOR USHAKOV
In 1944, a special commission was established to locate and examine the burial place of Admiral Fyodor Ushakov at the Sanaksar Monastery.
The tomb had been partially destroyed, and the remains had been disturbed.
The identity of the burial was associated with preserved parts of a naval uniform, gold embroidery, and an admiral’s epaulette.
The skull was sufficiently well preserved and was temporarily transferred for examination.
In 1945, Gerasimov created a documentary sculptural portrait of Ushakov.
Comparison demonstrated that the traditional painted image of the naval commander had been significantly idealised. The artist had lengthened the face in accordance with the aesthetic canon of the period, whereas the skull indicated broader and shorter proportions.
In this instance, reconstruction became a means of critically examining historical iconography.
After completion of the work, the skull was returned and reburied.
XXIV. THE SCYTHIAN KING SKILURUS
During excavations of Scythian Neapolis near Simferopol, a monumental tomb was investigated.
The richness of the burial, the weapons, and the large number of gold elements of clothing allowed archaeologists to associate the buried individual with the Scythian King Skilurus.
Gerasimov reconstructed the face from the skull.
The possibility of comparing the sculptural portrait with representations on coins and reliefs was especially valuable.
Such a comparison helped assess both the possibilities of the method and the conventional nature of ancient representations.
XXV. THE POET RUDAKI
Mikhail Gerasimov participated in the examination of remains from Panjrud that were associated with the poet Rudaki.
He created a sculptural portrait and published the work “An Attempt to Reproduce a Documentary Portrait from the Skeleton from Panjrud.”
The examination of the remains was used in discussions of the poet’s health and the cause of his loss of sight.
Gerasimov believed that changes in the orbital region might indicate traumatic blinding rather than congenital blindness.
Such a historical and medical interpretation must, however, be assessed separately from the reconstruction of the face. The condition of the bone may indicate trauma, but the precise circumstances of the event require comparison with written sources.
A museum description of the portrait of Rudaki is presented in a specialist collection of anthropological reconstructions.
XXVI. IVAN THE TERRIBLE AND FEODOR I
During the 1960s, a special commission investigated burials in the Cathedral of the Archangel in the Moscow Kremlin.
Gerasimov’s laboratory was entrusted with the examination of the remains of Ivan IV and his sons.
The investigation of Ivan the Terrible’s skeleton revealed:
great height;
considerable physical strength;
pronounced muscular development;
severe pathological changes in the spine and joints;
considerable restriction of movement during the final years of his life.
Growths of bone tissue were discovered around the joints and on the vertebrae. Such changes may have caused severe pain.
Gerasimov created the appearance of an ageing, massive man with heavy facial features.
Here it is especially important to distinguish between the anatomical foundation and the facial expression. The forms of the forehead, nose, cheekbones, jaws, and chin may be associated with the structure of the skull. The psychological expression, tension of the lips, and gaze, however, inevitably include an element of sculptural interpretation.
The reconstruction of Ivan the Terrible was completed in 1964.
In 1965, a portrait of Tsar Feodor I was created.
After the investigations, the remains were preserved and returned to the sarcophagi. Documents describing the work performed were placed inside the burials.
XXVII. FRIEDRICH SCHILLER AND A LESSON IN SCIENTIFIC CAUTION
In 1961, Gerasimov participated in the examination of a skull believed to belong to the German poet Friedrich Schiller.
A portrait was created on the basis of this skull.
In 2008, DNA studies demonstrated that neither of the two skulls traditionally associated with Schiller actually belonged to the poet.
The results are presented by the Klassik Stiftung Weimar.
This case has fundamental methodological significance.
Gerasimov could reconstruct the probable face of the person to whom the skull provided to him belonged. The reconstruction method, however, could not independently prove that the person was Schiller.
Two questions must therefore be distinguished:
1. how correctly the face was reconstructed from the particular skull;
2. whether the name of the owner of that skull was correctly established.
The first question belongs to anthropological reconstruction. The second concerns the provenance of the remains, archival documents, and genetic identification.
XXVIII. FUNDAMENTAL SCIENTIFIC WORKS
1. The Foundations of Facial Reconstruction from the Skull
The book was published in 1949.
In it, Gerasimov set out:
the anatomical foundation of the method;
data concerning soft-tissue depths;
the sequence of graphic and sculptural work;
the results of control experiments;
the possibilities of achieving individual resemblance.
In 1950, he was awarded the Stalin Prize, Third Class, for this monograph.
In contemporary reference materials, the award is sometimes described as a State Prize, although the original title is historically correct for 1950.
2. The Reconstruction of the Face from the Skull
In 1955, the fundamental monograph The Reconstruction of the Face from the Skull: Modern and Fossil Man was published.
It comprised 585 pages.
The book united:
anatomy;
anthropology;
craniology;
archaeology;
research into human evolution;
reconstruction methodology;
descriptions of historical portraits;
extensive illustrative material.
In 1956, this work served as the basis for awarding Gerasimov the degree of Doctor of Historical Sciences.
3. People of the Stone Age
The book was published in 1964.
In it, Gerasimov presented reconstructions of ancient people within a broad archaeological and anthropological context.
He sought to show not isolated busts, but the history of human and cultural development.
The book combined scientific content with an accessible form and played an important role in the popularisation of anthropology.
XXIX. THE CREATION OF THE LABORATORY OF PLASTIC RECONSTRUCTION
In 1950, the Laboratory of Plastic Reconstruction was founded at the Institute of Ethnography of the Academy of Sciences of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
Gerasimov directed it until 1970.
The establishment of the laboratory represented institutional recognition of a new scientific field.
There:
comparative anthropological data were collected;
control investigations were conducted;
graphic and sculptural reconstructions were created;
new rules for reconstructing individual parts of the face were developed;
historical burials were investigated;
young specialists were trained.
After Gerasimov’s death, the laboratory was headed by his student Galina Vyacheslavovna Lebedinskaya.
From 1996 to 2012, its director was Tatiana Sergeevna Balueva.
Subsequent research has been associated with Elizaveta Valentinovna Veselovskaya and contemporary employees of the Centre for Physical Anthropology.
The official webpage of the Laboratory of Anthropological Reconstruction demonstrates that the field created by Gerasimov continues to develop.
The laboratory possesses the largest collection of reconstructed portraits of representatives of different historical periods.
XXX. STUDENTS AND SUCCESSORS
Gerasimov’s scientific school developed in two principal directions.
1. Anthropological Reconstruction
His students refined:
the determination of soft-tissue depths;
the reconstruction of the nose;
graphic reconstruction;
criminalistic applications;
statistical comparisons between the face and skull;
computer modelling.
Galina Lebedinskaya made an especially significant contribution.
2. The Archaeology of Siberia
Participants in the excavations at Mal’ta and Ust-Belaya subsequently became well-known archaeologists.
German Medvedev and Mikhail Aksyonov continued the study of the Stone Age in the Cis-Baikal region.
Gerasimov therefore left behind not one, but effectively two scientific traditions:
a school of anthropological reconstruction;
a new generation of Irkutsk archaeologists.
XXXI. INTERNATIONAL RECOGNITION
Gerasimov’s works became known beyond the borders of the Soviet Union.
His method entered international literature as the Russian anatomical method of facial reconstruction.
In 1969, an exhibition of his reconstructions was presented in Paris during an international congress devoted to the study of the Quaternary period.
The exhibition received high praise, and the displayed works were donated to the Musée de l’Homme in Paris.
Contemporary international literature distinguishes three major approaches to facial reconstruction:
the anatomical, or Russian, method;
the soft-tissue depth-marker method;
combined approaches, including the Manchester method.
The history of the development of scientific facial reconstruction is examined in a publication by Cambridge University Press.
XXXII. AWARDS AND SCIENTIFIC TITLES
The principal forms of official recognition received by Mikhail Gerasimov included:
the Stalin Prize, Third Class—1950;
the degree of Doctor of Historical Sciences—1956;
the honorary title of Honoured Scientist of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic—1969.
According to the State Darwin Museum, Gerasimov created approximately two hundred reconstructions of fossil and ancient humans and more than twenty portraits of well-known historical figures.
The precise number may vary depending upon whether the following are included:
graphic versions;
repeated sculptures;
museum copies;
unfinished works;
reconstructions of a general anthropological type;
portraits of specific historical figures.
The most accurate formulation is therefore: more than two hundred anthropological reconstructions, including over twenty portraits of historical figures.
XXXIII. THE SCIENTIFIC LIMITS OF THE METHOD
Scientific respect for Gerasimov does not require the assertion that every face can be reconstructed with absolute precision.
The skull makes it possible to determine with reasonable justification:
facial proportions;
the form of the jaws;
the position of the cheekbones;
the structure of the chin;
the bony foundation of the nose;
the position of the orbits;
characteristics of the bite;
overall robustness.
The skull, however, does not preserve direct information concerning:
eye colour;
skin colour;
hair colour and texture;
hairstyle;
the form of the external ears;
fine wrinkles;
the precise distribution of subcutaneous fat;
habitual facial expression;
many characteristics of the lips and the cartilaginous portion of the nose.
A reconstruction therefore combines several levels of reliability.
Some characteristics can be determined with relative confidence. Others are probabilistic. Still others are reconstructed solely on the basis of historical context.
Contemporary systematic reviews confirm the scientific usefulness of the method, while indicating the need for further refinement of individual facial regions, especially the nose. One such review is available through PubMed.
Gerasimov himself understood the need for verification and did not conceal the imperfections of his early work. It is precisely this that distinguishes him from the author of an attractive but unverifiable theory.
XXXIV. THE GERASIMOV METHOD IN THE DIGITAL AGE
Contemporary specialists use:
computer tomography;
three-dimensional scanning;
digital photogrammetry;
virtual restoration;
three-dimensional printing;
ultrasound measurements of soft tissues;
statistical models;
computer databases;
genetic research;
machine-learning algorithms.
It is now possible to create a digital copy of a skull, restore damage virtually, and test several variants of soft-tissue depth.
Gerasimov’s fundamental principle nevertheless remains: the form of the face is connected with the structure of the skull and must be reconstructed on the basis of anatomical regularities.
The computer has not abolished this principle. It has merely provided new tools for implementing it.
XXXV. THE ETHICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE WORK
The contemporary investigation of human remains requires compliance with strict ethical rules.
It is necessary to consider:
the lawfulness of opening a burial;
the provenance of the remains;
religious traditions;
the interests of descendants;
the preservation of the material;
respectful treatment;
the possibility of return or reburial;
the distinction between scientific fact and artistic interpretation.
Gerasimov worked within the legal and scientific culture of the twentieth century. Contemporary standards have become stricter.
The humanistic essence of his work nevertheless remains clear: he sought to restore individuality to people from whom only skeletal remains had survived.
XXXVI. GERASIMOV’S PRINCIPAL DISCOVERY
Mikhail Mikhailovich’s principal discovery did not consist solely in showing that a face could be approximately modelled from a skull.
He demonstrated a more profound proposition:
the individual features of outward appearance are systematically connected with the individual morphology of the facial skeleton, and this relationship can be studied, described, verified, and used in practice.
An entire scientific field emerged from this proposition.
The method made it possible to:
visualise ancient populations;
create portraits of historical figures;
examine traditional representations critically;
assist criminalistic identification;
compare anthropological types;
develop museum exhibitions;
restore individuality to a human being.
XXXVII. A CONCLUDING ASSESSMENT OF THE SCIENTIFIC LEGACY
Mikhail Mikhailovich Gerasimov achieved several major scientific accomplishments.
The First Achievement
He investigated the Palaeolithic site of Mal’ta and introduced one of the most important archaeological complexes of Northern Asia into scientific study.
The Second Achievement
He discovered and studied numerous sites in the Angara region and the Russian Far East and participated in creating an archaeological map of the region.
The Third Achievement
He contributed to the periodisation of the Stone Age and correctly identified the early position of the Kitoi burials within the Neolithic of the Cis-Baikal region.
The Fourth Achievement
He developed a scientifically verifiable method of plastic facial reconstruction from the skull.
The Fifth Achievement
He applied the method to the earliest humans, archaeological populations, and well-known historical figures.
The Sixth Achievement
He introduced facial reconstruction into the sphere of criminalistic practice.
The Seventh Achievement
He created fundamental scientific works that summarised the anatomical and anthropological foundations of the method.
The Eighth Achievement
He founded a laboratory that continued to exist after his death.
The Ninth Achievement
He trained students and restored the continuity of the Irkutsk archaeological school.
The Tenth Achievement
He united science and art without allowing artistic expressiveness to replace the anatomical foundation.
CONCLUSION TO THE SCIENTIFIC SECTION
Mikhail Mikhailovich Gerasimov belongs among those scientists who changed the very manner in which the past is perceived.
Before him, an archaeological skull was primarily measured, described, and classified. After him, it became a source for reconstructing an individual human appearance.
Before him, ancient people were frequently depicted conventionally. After him, it became possible to construct an image on the basis of specific skeletal material.
Before him, anthropology and sculpture largely existed alongside one another. He compelled them to work together.
It is no less important, however, to remember that Gerasimov was a great archaeologist.
Mal’ta, Ust-Belaya, the Resettlement Centre, the Fofanovo burial ground, the sites of the Belaya River valley, and numerous expeditions constitute an independent and immense part of his legacy.
He was not a man of a single discovery.
He investigated ancient settlements, reconstructed technologies, studied dwellings, developed periodisations, worked with burials, taught field methodology, and trained students.
His life passed in uninterrupted movement among the excavation, the laboratory, the museum, anatomical research, the academic office, and the next expedition.
The great-grandson’s personal recollection of Mikhalych as constantly occupied and almost never at home therefore fully corresponds to the documented rhythm of his scientific life.
He genuinely travelled constantly.
He genuinely worked in different regions of an immense country.
He genuinely devoted practically all his time to his work.
The result was a scientific system that outlived its creator.
Mikhail Mikhailovich Gerasimov died on 21 July 1970, but the laboratory he founded continued its work. His students refined the method. The portraits he created entered museums and textbooks. The materials he excavated became the foundation for new research. Genetics confirmed the exceptional significance of Mal’ta. Radiocarbon dates demonstrated the correctness of individual archaeological conclusions.
This is what true scientific immortality means.
For world science, he remains Mikhail Mikhailovich Gerasimov—an outstanding archaeologist, anthropologist, sculptor, and founder of a scientific school.
For his great-grandson, he forever remains Mikhalych—a close, remarkable, and tireless man whom he personally remembers.
PRINCIPAL SCIENTIFIC AND MUSEUM SOURCES
3. State Darwin Museum: “A Genius of Scientific Restoration”
4. Academic Obituary of Mikhail Mikhailovich Gerasimov, 1970
6. M. M. Gerasimov, The Reconstruction of the Face from the Skull, 1955
7. “Mikhail Mikhailovich Gerasimov and His Method of Facial Reconstruction from the Skull”
8. “The Neolithic of the Cis-Baikal Region: The History of a Debate”
9. Study of the Genome of a Human Individual from the Palaeolithic Site of Mal’ta
10. The History of Anthropological Facial Reconstruction—Cambridge University Press
11. Contemporary Interview Concerning the Gerasimov Method and the Work of His Scientific School
12. Klassik Stiftung Weimar: Investigation of the Remains Believed to Belong to Friedrich Schiller
13. State Darwin Museum: The Child from the Teshik-Tash Grotto
14. Kunstkamera: Sculptural Reconstruction of Yaroslav the Wise
15. Systematic Review of Forensic Facial-Reconstruction Methods
