The accuracy of the facial reconstruction method has been extensively debated over the years. One of the points of contention seems to be disagreement over who should carry out the facial reconstruction work itself. Should it be the artist, who uses more intuitive sculptural skills; or the scientist, who follows a preconceived method? Often scientists employed artists to carry out the sculptural work under their scientific supervision. Such work, however, did not escape criticism. As early as 1900, Merkel was assisted by Eichler, a sculptor, and together they carried out the reconstruction of an ancient Saxon. Eichler departed widely from the prescribed data and followed his own deductions concerning the development of muscles, as suggested by the lines and features of the skull. The aesthetically pleasing result could not be tested and therefore the departure from the data could not be defended. Alternatively, there have been many facial reconstructions that have been carried out with a very methodical and scientifically pure technique that have resulted in wooden, lifeless and clumsily sculpted faces that are crying out for the aesthetic and observed input of an artist. The contention is based around whether or not aesthetic appeal is a necessity when recognition or similarity to an individual is the only requirement. One theory proposed by George (1993) suggested that the face shape and proportions are the most important factors, and any added detail, which makes the face human, may detract from the features and overall impression of the face.