Roots of plants in f33r, f89r1, f101v2 include depictions of anthropomorphic heads

[Diane]

I describe such figures and faces as 'anthropoform'. It  acknowledges the maker(s) intention that we should  recognise similarity to the human, but avoids presuming more than that.

Marco's example is perhaps less than apt.  A catalogue description isn't trying to provide an ultimate dictum but only allow the page to be recognised if, say, it was stolen or if the person reading couldn't see the original.

In the same way someone might say that a picture of the moon was given "a human face" but the sense is still 'anthropoform' not actually "human" - we all know that the moon hasn't really got a human face.

And in that case, no human being actually has leaves growing from his head, or a serpentine/wormy thing sprouting from his chin.

So it's not a 'human face' in the strict sense and  no-one could be deceived into mistaking it for a living (ensouled) human,  which distinction may have been important for the original maker/s of these images - something to keep in mind, anyway.