The finding also illustrates a broader methodological point about phenotypic reconstruction from ancient genomes. The previous reconstruction of a full-haired Ötzi was not scientifically reckless; it was based on a genome that lacked the information to predict otherwise, combined with a reasonable default assumption. The revised genome, with better coverage and less contamination, provided information the previous analysis could not. The phenotypic picture changes as the genomic picture improves.
—
## The 2011 Reconstruction: What It Was Based On and What It Got Wrong
In 2011, the South Tyrol Museum of Archaeology commissioned Dutch artists Adrie and Alfons Kennis to create a new physical reconstruction of Ötzi for display. The Kennis brothers are specialists in hyper-realistic ancient human reconstructions; their work on Neanderthals and early modern humans is widely displayed.
Their Ötzi reconstruction worked from three-dimensional CT scans of the actual skull, which provided the underlying bone structure. The soft tissue was reconstructed using forensic facial approximation methods, drawing on knowledge of how soft tissue typically maps onto skeletal landmarks in modern humans. The skin coloration, hair, and eye color were informed by the 2012 genomic data as it became available.
The result was the figure that has been displayed in the Bolzano museum for more than a decade and reproduced in innumerable documentary films, educational materials, and news articles: a weathered but vigorous-looking middle-aged man with relatively light brown skin, dark hair of moderate length, and a generally Mediterranean European appearance.
Elisabeth Vallazza, the director of the South Tyrol Museum of Archaeology, said in the context of the 2023 genomic publication that the figure was “an attempt at interpretation,” and noted that there were currently no plans to revise it. The museum reconstruction is a physical artifact as well as a scientific visualization, and the 2023 findings represent probabilities and predictions, not certainties about appearance. The museum’s position — that the existing reconstruction remains on display while the new findings are communicated through other educational means — reflects the practical reality that physical reconstructions of this complexity are not easily revised.