DOCSLIB.ORG

Introduction to Forensic Anthropology 3

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Introduction to Forensic Anthropology 3 Chapter 1 Introduction to Forensic Anthropology Douglas H. Ubelaker Summary The academic roots of modern forensic anthropology can be traced back to contri- butions of Europeans, beginning in the 18th century. In particular, Jean-Joseph Sue, Matthieu-Joseph-Bonaventure Orfila, Paul Broca, Paul Topinard, Étienne Rollet, Leonce Manouvrier, and Karl Pearson published research on the methodology of stature esti- mation and related topics. In North America, Thomas Dwight, Aleˇs Hrdliˇcka, T. D. Stewart, Wilton Krogman, and Mildred Trotter provided early leadership in forensic anthropology. Key develop- ments were the establishment of the physical anthropgy section of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences in 1972 and the American Board of Forensic Anthro- pology in 1977, as well as many publications focusing specifically on issues of foren- sic anthropology. Professional activity in forensic anthropology continues to grow throughout the world. The formation in 2003 of the Forensic Anthropology Society of Europe in asso- ciation with the International Academy of Legal Medicine demonstrates the strength of such activity, and suggests that through regional research and casework, forensic anthro- pology will become increasingly sophisticated. Key Words: Forensic anthropology; physical anthropology; Europe; United States. From Forensic Anthropology and Medicine: Complementary Sciences From Recovery to Cause of Death Edited by: A. Schmitt, E. Cunha, and J. Pinheiro © Humana Press Inc., Totowa, NJ 3 4 Ubelaker 1. INTRODUCTION Forensic anthropology represents the application of knowledge and tech- niques of physical anthropology to problems of medicolegal significance. Goals are usually to assist in the identification of human remains and to help determine what happened to the remains, especially with regard to the evi- dence of foul play. Usually, the material examined consists of largely or com- pletely skeletonized remains, or skeletal evidence that has been removed from fleshed remains. Forensic anthropology brings to a case techniques and experience in the interpretation of skeletal remains as well as a worldwide comparative population perspective. Such a perspective is needed to assess properly the probabilities involved and to avoid errors of interpretation. 2. DEFINITIONS In 1976, T. D. Stewart (1901–1907) defined forensic anthropology as “that branch of physical anthropology, which, for forensic purposes, deals with the identification of more or less skeletonized remains known to be, or suspected of being, human” (1). This definition reflects the thinking at the time regarding the nature of cases usually examined and the distinction between the comparatively new science of forensic anthropology and the more estab- lished science of forensic pathology/forensic medicine. Snow (2) offered a somewhat broader definition of forensic anthropol- ogy to include applications to “problems of medical jurisprudence.” He agreed with Stewart that skeletal remains constituted the usual object of inquiry; however, on occasion, forensic anthropologists offer opinions on the living, become involved in paternity issues, and otherwise deal with fleshed remains. This broader definition has been reinforced in more recent times, as forensic anthropologists have applied their skills to a variety of problems beyond clas- sic skeletal analysis. 3. HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT The history of forensic anthropology is closely linked with that of physical anthropology and related specialties within forensic science. Before the late 18th century and continuing to some extent subsequently, skeletal analysis within a forensic context was mostly an applied area of anatomy. Anatomists and physicians would apply their knowledge of skeletal anatomy and its varia- tion as best they could using general knowledge, the few techniques that existed in textbooks, and their experience. Introduction to Forensic Anthropology 5 3.1. European Roots Seeds of what was to become forensic anthropology were sown in France with the work of Jean-Joseph Sue, an instructor of art anatomy at the Louvre in Paris. In 1755, he published measurements of cadavers ranging in age from fetus to young adult. Although the intention was to provide artists with accu- rate information on body proportions and how such proportions changed with age, the work launched an important French interest, leading to research on stature calculation (3). Sue’s measurements reached a wider audience through publication by Matthieu-Joseph-Bonaventure Orfila in two medicolegal text- books in the early 19th century (4,5). Orfila supplemented Sue’s measure- ments with his own, and for many years, the two databases comprised the sources used by the medicolegal community to evaluate stature from incom- plete remains. As Stewart (6) has noted, some confusion resulted from Sue’s use of the old French system of measurement (pied, pouce, ligne, etc.) vs the metric system employed by Orfila, but a nascent science of developing tech- niques aimed specifically at skeletal analysis was launched. In 1859, Paul Broca (1824–1880) founded, in Paris, the world’s first official organization of physical anthropology, the Société d’Anthropologie de Paris. Broca is perhaps best known for his work in neuroanatomy, and like other founding members of the Société, he was trained in medicine, yet he recognized the need for understanding human variation and putting skeletal interpretation on a more scientific footing. Broca developed new instruments (e.g., the osteometric board, goniometer, and stereograph) for the quantifica- tion of skeletal measurements, and initiated training and discussion in com- parative skeletal anatomy (7). Broca’s successor, Paul Topinard (1830–1911), included in a new text- book of physical anthropology (8) a section on stature estimation, which strengthened interest in these techniques. This effort was followed by a doc- toral thesis in Lyon by Étienne Rollet (9), who compared long-bone lengths with cadaver length in a sample of 50 males and 50 females. These data were then organized into tabular form and published (10) by Leonce Manouvrier (1850–1927) and widely utilized subsequently. English input into the development of forensic anthropology came in the form of Karl Pearson’s regression theory. Like Manouvrier, Pearson (11) utilized Rollet’s long-bone/cadaver length data, but presented them in the form of regression equations. Pearson’s 1899 monograph, as well as much of the biometrical school that followed, focused on evolutionary issues, but these developments greatly influenced the future development of forensic anthro- pology. Much of the subsequent effort in Europe in physical anthropology 6 Ubelaker focused on paleoanthropology, growth and development, and studies of archeologically recovered human remains, although anthropologists remained active in modern cases involving issues of paternity (12) and other legal prob- lems (13). In an early use of the term “forensic anthropology,” Schwidetzky (12) described efforts in Germany and Austria to use techniques of physical anthropology to assess the parentage of displaced children and those of dis- puted paternity. According to Schwidetzky (12), as many as 2500 opinions were presented to the courts by anthropologists each year on these issues. She traces the first such opinion back to Professor Otto Reche in 1926, who was then director of the Anthropological Institute at Vienna. Courts in Austria and Germany subsequently emphasized the importance of anthropological analysis in such cases (12). 3.2. Developments in America As in Europe, early practitioners of forensic anthropology in the United States represented anatomists and medical specialists who were drawn into casework. A case in point is Jeffries Wyman (1814–1874), the Hersey Pro- fessor of Anatomy at Harvard and first curator of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology in 1866, who studied human remains recovered in a sensational murder investigation at Harvard (14). Dr. George Parkman, a physician and wealthy donor to the university, who also ran a loan business, was murdered by Harvard faculty member John W. Webster, who failed to make loan payments. Apparently, after killing Parkman, Webster removed some body parts and burned them in the furnace of his laboratory. Wyman was called in to identify the burned remains and demonstrate that they were consistent with those parts removed from the body (14). American research aimed directly at issues of forensic anthropology was initiated by Thomas Dwight (1843–1911), upon whom Stewart (1) bestowed the title “Father of American Forensic Anthropology.” Like Wyman, Dwight was trained in anatomy and taught at Harvard. In fact, Dwight held the Parkman Professorship of Anatomy at Harvard and taught at the medical school that houses the laboratory where Parkman was killed, which was built on the land Parkman donated. Dwight became the first American anatomist to research issues relative to forensic anthropology. After winning a prize for an essay on the medicolegal identification of the human skeleton in 1878 (15), Dwight published a series of important articles (16–21) on issues of estimation of sex, age at death, and stature. George A. Dorsey (1868–1931) appears to represent the first anthropo- logically trained professional to become involved in forensic matters. Hold- ing a Harvard doctorate, Dorsey conducted some research on archeologically Introduction to Forensic Anthropology 7 recovered human remains,
Recommended publications
  • Race and Membership in American History: the Eugenics Movement

    Race and Membership in American History: the Eugenics Movement

    Race and Membership in American History: The Eugenics Movement Facing History and Ourselves National Foundation, Inc. Brookline, Massachusetts Eugenicstextfinal.qxp 11/6/2006 10:05 AM Page 2 For permission to reproduce the following photographs, posters, and charts in this book, grateful acknowledgement is made to the following: Cover: “Mixed Types of Uncivilized Peoples” from Truman State University. (Image #1028 from Cold Spring Harbor Eugenics Archive, http://www.eugenics archive.org/eugenics/). Fitter Family Contest winners, Kansas State Fair, from American Philosophical Society (image #94 at http://www.amphilsoc.org/ library/guides/eugenics.htm). Ellis Island image from the Library of Congress. Petrus Camper’s illustration of “facial angles” from The Works of the Late Professor Camper by Thomas Cogan, M.D., London: Dilly, 1794. Inside: p. 45: The Works of the Late Professor Camper by Thomas Cogan, M.D., London: Dilly, 1794. 51: “Observations on the Size of the Brain in Various Races and Families of Man” by Samuel Morton. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences, vol. 4, 1849. 74: The American Philosophical Society. 77: Heredity in Relation to Eugenics, Charles Davenport. New York: Henry Holt &Co., 1911. 99: Special Collections and Preservation Division, Chicago Public Library. 116: The Missouri Historical Society. 119: The Daughters of Edward Darley Boit, 1882; John Singer Sargent, American (1856-1925). Oil on canvas; 87 3/8 x 87 5/8 in. (221.9 x 222.6 cm.). Gift of Mary Louisa Boit, Julia Overing Boit, Jane Hubbard Boit, and Florence D. Boit in memory of their father, Edward Darley Boit, 19.124.
  • Early Craniometric Tools As a Predecessor to Neurosurgical Stereotaxis

    Early Craniometric Tools As a Predecessor to Neurosurgical Stereotaxis

    HISTORICAL VIGNETTE J Neurosurg 124:1867–1874, 2016 Early craniometric tools as a predecessor to neurosurgical stereotaxis Demitre Serletis, MD, PhD, FRCSC, and T. Glenn Pait, MD Department of Neurosurgery, Jackson T. Stephens Spine and Neurosciences Institute, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, Arkansas In this paper the authors trace the history of early craniometry, referring to the technique of obtaining cranial measure- ments for the accurate correlation of external skull landmarks to specific brain regions. Largely drawing on methods from the newly emerging fields of physical anthropology and phrenology in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, basic mathematical concepts were combined with simplistic (yet at the time, innovative) mechanical tools, leading to the first known attempts at craniocerebral topography. It is important to acknowledge the pioneers of this pre-imaging epoch, who applied creativity and ingenuity to tackle the challenge of reproducibly and reliably accessing a specific target in the brain. In particular, with the emergence of Broca’s theory of cortical localization, in vivo craniometric tools, and the introduction of 3D coordinate systems, several innovative devices were conceived that subsequently paved the way for modern-day stereotactic techniques. In this context, the authors present a comprehensive and systematic review of the most popular craniometric tools developed during this time period (prior to the stereotactic era) for the purposes of craniocerebral measurement and target
  • Forensic Facial Reconstruction SUBJECT FORENSIC SCIENCE

    Forensic Facial Reconstruction SUBJECT FORENSIC SCIENCE

    SUBJECT FORENSIC SCIENCE Paper No. and Title PAPER No. 11: Forensic Anthropology Module No. and Title MODULE No. 21: Forensic Facial Reconstruction Module Tag FSC_P11_M21 FORENSIC SCIENCE PAPER No. 11: Forensic Anthropology MODULE No. 21: Forensic Facial Reconstruction TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Learning Outcomes 2. Introduction 2.1. History 3. Types of Identification 3.1. Circumstantial Identification 3.2. Positive Identification 4. Types of Reconstruction 4.1. Two-Dimensional Reconstruction 4.2. Three- Dimensional Reconstruction 4.3. Superimposition 5. Techniques for creating facial reconstruction 6. Steps of facial reconstruction 7. Limitations of Facial Reconstruction 8. Summary FORENSIC SCIENCE PAPER No. 11: Forensic Anthropology MODULE No. 21: Forensic Facial Reconstruction 1. Learning Outcomes After studying this module, you will be able to know- About facial reconstruction About types of identification and reconstruction About various techniques of facial reconstruction and steps of facial reconstruction. About limitations of facial reconstruction 2. Introduction Amalgamation of artistry with forensic science, osteology, anatomy and anthropology to recreate the face of an individual from its skeletal remains is known as Forensic Facial reconstruction. It is also known as forensic facial approximation. It recreates the individual’s face from features of skull. It is used by anthropologists, forensic investigators and archaeologists to help in portraying historical faces, identification of victims of crime or illustrate the features if fossil human ancestors. Two and three dimensional approaches are available for facial reconstruction. In forensic science, it is one of the most controversial and subjective technique. This method is successfully used inspite of this controversy. There are two types of methods of reconstruction which are used i.e.
  • A Multidisciplinary Validation Study of Nonhuman Animal Models For

    A Multidisciplinary Validation Study of Nonhuman Animal Models For

    The author(s) shown below used Federal funding provided by the U.S. Department of Justice to prepare the following resource: Document Title: A Multidisciplinary Validation Study of Nonhuman Animal Models for Forensic Decomposition Research Author(s): Dawnie Wolfe Steadman, Ph.D., D-ABFA Document Number: 251553 Date Received: March 2018 Award Number: 2013-DN-BX-K037 This resource has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. This resource is being made publically available through the Office of Justice Programs’ National Criminal Justice Reference Service. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs National Institute of Justice Grant # 2013-DN-BX-K037 A Multidisciplinary Validation Study of Nonhuman Animal Models for Forensic Decomposition Research Submitted by: Dawnie Wolfe Steadman, Ph.D., D-ABFA Director of the Forensic Anthropology Center Professor of Anthropology 865-974-0909; [email protected] DUNS: 00-388-7891 EIN: 62-6--1636 The University of Tennessee 1 Circle Park Drive Knoxville, TN 37996-0003 Recipient Account: #R011005404 Final Report This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Purpose and Objectives of the Project Over the past century of scientific inquiry into the process of decomposition, nearly every mammal (and other taxa) has been studied.
  • Forensic Anthropology

    Forensic Anthropology

    ADJ14 Advanced Criminal Investigations Forensic Anthropology Forensic Anthropology In any field operation involving human remains, four main tasks may need to be performed: 1. Location a. Finding remains (individual, multiple, visible or buried, informant or search) 2. Mapping a. Placement of remains and associated materials must be mapped in relation to a permanent structure, set as a datum point, and location on a larger map must be pinpointed 3. Excavation a. If remains are interred, must use principles of archaeology to remove. 4. Collection a. Remains must be collected using accepted procedures and must be properly packaged for analysis. Chain of custody is vital. PRELIMINARY ISSUES “A major problem surrounding the recovery of remains is the noninvolvement of forensic anthropologists” (Byers, 2011, p. 75). Investigators often forget to collect/search for all bones – including hand or foot bones. Komar & Potter (2007) demonstrate that the rate of victim identification and determination of cause and manner of death are directly related to the proportion of the body collected on scene. Ensure a proper perimeter is set up as soon as possible. Secure the scene. Watch where you step – bones can be brittle if left in the elements. Watch time – if you are doing an excavation, you are dealing with a death. You can take your time on scene, and these scenes tend to be lengthy – there is no need to rush medical attention. LOCATING REMAINS 1. Determine the location 2. Develop a search plan that is tailored to the unique circumstances of the search area; be aware of what resources you have and what you will need.
  • List of Entries

    List of Entries

    Volume 1.qxd 9/13/2005 3:29 PM Page ix GGGGG LIST OF ENTRIES Aborigines Anthropic principle Apes, greater Aborigines Anthropocentrism Apes, lesser Acheulean culture Anthropology and business Apollonian Acropolis Anthropology and Aquatic ape hypothesis Action anthropology epistemology Aquinas, Thomas Adaptation, biological Anthropology and the Third Arboreal hypothesis Adaptation, cultural World Archaeology Aesthetic appreciation Anthropology of men Archaeology and gender Affirmative action Anthropology of religion studies Africa, socialist schools in Anthropology of women Archaeology, biblical African American thought Anthropology, careers in Archaeology, environmental African Americans Anthropology, characteristics of Archaeology, maritime African thinkers Anthropology, clinical Archaeology, medieval Aggression Anthropology, cultural Archaeology, salvage Ape aggression Anthropology, economic Architectural anthropology Agricultural revolution Anthropology, history of Arctic Agriculture, intensive Future of anthropology Ardrey, Robert Agriculture, origins of Anthropology, humanistic Argentina Agriculture, slash-and-burn Anthropology, philosophical Aristotle Alchemy Anthropology, practicing Arsuaga, J. L. Aleuts Anthropology, social Art, universals in ALFRED: The ALlele FREquency Anthropology and sociology Artificial intelligence Database Social anthropology Artificial intelligence Algonquians Anthropology, subdivisions of Asante Alienation Anthropology, theory in Assimilation Alienation Anthropology, Visual Atapuerca Altamira cave
  • Imaging Race

    Imaging Race

    Imaging Race Jennifer L. Eberhardt Stanford University Researchers have recently begun to use the tools of neu- across racial groups in order to explain Black inferiority roscience to examine the social psychological responses and justify massive racial inequities, so too may current associated with race. This article serves as a review of the neuroscience studies shape societal understandings of race. developing literature in this area. It advances the argument The differences between neuroscientists then and now, that neuroscience studies of race have the potential to however, are stark. Whereas 19th-century neuroscientists shape fundamental assumptions about race, and the inter- sought and saw permanent racial group differences rooted play between social and biological processes more in biology, contemporary neuroscientists seek to uncover generally. social influences of neural responses understood to be transient and malleable. Contemporary research efforts thus rest on and promote an alternative understanding of the interplay of race and neurobiology. dvances in the neurosciences have produced new This article unfolds in three steps. First, I review a and powerful tools for examining neural activity. limited number of social neuroscience studies of race, AFunctional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) highlighting neuroimaging studies in particular. Second, I techniques in particular offer a noninvasive means of ex- contrast current research to the efforts of 19th-century amining the functioning of healthy brains. These tech- neuroscientists to identify differences in skull size among niques provide unique opportunities for researchers from a racial groups. Finally, I discuss how current neurobiologi- wide variety of disciplines to explore the neural correlates cal approaches to race may refashion societal notions of of social psychological phenomena.
  • A Look at the History of Forensic Anthropology: Tracing My Academic Genealogy

    A Look at the History of Forensic Anthropology: Tracing My Academic Genealogy

    ISSN 2150-3311 JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY ANTHROPOLOGY RESEARCH ARTICLE VOLUME I 2010 ISSUE 1 A Look at the History of Forensic Anthropology: Tracing My Academic Genealogy Stephanie DuPont Golda Ph.D. Candidate Department of Anthropology University of Missouri Columbia, Missouri Copyright © Stephanie DuPont Golda A Look at the History of Forensic Anthropology: Tracing My Academic Genealogy Stephanie DuPont Golda Ph.D. Candidate Department of Anthropology University of Missouri Columbia, Missouri ABSTRACT Construction of an academic genealogy is an important component of professional socialization as well as an opportunity to review the history of subdisciplines within larger disciplines to discover transitions in the pedagogical focus of broad fields in academia. This academic genealogy surveys the development of forensic anthropology rooted in physical anthropology, as early as 1918, until the present, when forensic anthropology was recognized as a legitimate subfield in anthropology. A historical review of contributions made by members of this genealogy demonstrates how forensic anthropology progressed from a period of classification and description to complete professionalization as a highly specialized and applied area of anthropology. Additionally, the tracing of two academic genealogies, the first as a result of a master’s degree and the second as a result of a doctoral degree, allows for representation of the two possible intellectual lineages in forensic anthropology. Golda: A Look at the History of Forensic Anthropology 35 INTRODUCTION What better way to learn the history of anthropology as a graduate student than to trace your own academic genealogy? Besides, without explicit construction of my own unique, individual, ego-centered genealogy, according to Darnell (2001), it would be impossible for me to read the history of anthropology as part of my professional socialization.
  • Identifying Individuals Through Proteomic Analysis: a New

    Identifying Individuals Through Proteomic Analysis: a New

    The author(s) shown below used Federal funding provided by the U.S. Department of Justice to prepare the following resource: Document Title: Identifying Individuals through Proteomic Analysis: A New Forensic Tool to Rapidly and Efficiently Identify Large Numbers of Fragmentary Human Remains Author(s): City of New York, Office of Chief Medical Examiner Document Number: 254583 Date Received: March 2020 Award Number: 2014-DN-BX-K014 This resource has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. This resource is being made publically available through the Office of Justice Programs’ National Criminal Justice Reference Service. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Final Summary NIJ Grant 2014-DN-BX-K014 Identifying Individuals through Proteomic Analysis: A New Forensic Tool to Rapidly and Efficiently Identify Large Numbers of Fragmentary Human Remains Final Summary: NIJ Grant 2014-DN-BX-K014, Identifying Individuals through Proteomic Analysis: A New Forensic Tool to Rapidly and Efficiently Identify Large Numbers of Fragmentary Human Remains. This summary follows the NIJ Post Award Reporting Requirements issued March 28, 2019 and is divided into the four prescribed sections: 1) Purpose, 2) Research Design & Methods, 3) Data Analysis & Findings, and 4) Implications for Criminal Justice Policy and Practice. ABBREVIATIONS ACN = Acetonitrile mse = mean square error ADD = accumulated degree days MS/MS = tandem mass
  • Experimental Investigations of Blunt Force Trauma in the Human Skeleton

    Experimental Investigations of Blunt Force Trauma in the Human Skeleton

    EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS OF BLUNT FORCE TRAUMA IN THE HUMAN SKELETON By Mariyam I. Isa A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Anthropology—Doctor of Philosophy 2020 ABSTRACT EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS OF BLUNT FORCE TRAUMA IN THE HUMAN SKELETON By Mariyam I. Isa In forensic anthropology, skeletal trauma is a growing area of analysis that can contribute important evidence about the circumstances of an individual’s death. In bioarchaeology, patterns of skeletal trauma are situated within a cultural context to explore human behaviors across time and space. Trauma analysis involves transforming observations of fracture patterns in the human skeleton into inferences about the circumstances involved in their production. This analysis is based on the foundational assumption that fracture behavior is the nonrandom result of interactions between extrinsic factors influencing the stresses placed on bone and intrinsic factors affecting bone’s ability to withstand these stresses. Biomechanical principles provide the theoretical foundation for generating hypotheses about how various extrinsic and intrinsic factors affect the formation of fracture patterns, and about how these factors can be read from fracture patterns. However, research is necessary to test and refine these hypotheses and, on a more basic level, to document the relationships between “input” variables of interest and fracture “outputs.” One research approach involves the use of forensic and/or clinical case samples. Case- based approaches are important because they provide data from real scenarios and contexts that may be similar to those encountered in unknown cases. However, a limitation is that input variables are not directly measured or controlled and therefore cannot be precisely known.
  • History of Facial Reconstruction Laura Verzé Department of Anatomy, Pharmacology and Legal Medicine, University of Turin, Turin, Italy

    History of Facial Reconstruction Laura Verzé Department of Anatomy, Pharmacology and Legal Medicine, University of Turin, Turin, Italy

    ACTA BIOMED 2009; 80: 5-12 © Mattioli 1885 R EVIEW History of facial reconstruction Laura Verzé Department of Anatomy, Pharmacology and Legal Medicine, University of Turin, Turin, Italy Abstract. We briefly describe the history of facial reconstruction in the deceased, starting from the skull. Fa- cial reconstruction has passed through many phases and has been variously motivated, from religion and an- cestor worship, through anthropology, to the identification of lost persons for forensic purposes. Renaissance artists used this technique for modelling and teaching. Techniques changed over the centuries but the ulti- mate goal was to create a convincing likeness of the dead. The two current activities are forensic facial re- construction and reconstructing the personal appearance of ancient people. (www.actabiomedica.it) Key words: Reconstructing facial appearance, craniofacial reconstruction, history Introduction Farkas et al (1994) (1) describe how the variabil- ity of facial proportions ensures the individuality of Faces are fascinating and faces from the past are the human face. particularly intriguing. Reconstructions help to solve problems but they also generate interest and answer First appearance in History: the Neolithic Age questions in a much wider context. Skulls can survive for centuries, even millions of years, and can provide In the past, bones or mummies of the dead were an unrivalled means of identification. In the past, fa- regarded by some cultures as objects of reverence to be cial reconstruction from skull was used for recognition preserved, whereas people of other cultures felt revul- of the deceased and more recently, for teaching anato- sion or phobia. Thus people have developed different my.
  • Foreign Bodies

    Foreign Bodies

    Chapter One Climate to Crania: science and the racialization of human difference Bronwen Douglas In letters written to a friend in 1790 and 1791, the young, German-trained French comparative anatomist Georges Cuvier (1769-1832) took vigorous humanist exception to recent ©stupid© German claims about the supposedly innate deficiencies of ©the negro©.1 It was ©ridiculous©, he expostulated, to explain the ©intellectual faculties© in terms of differences in the anatomy of the brain and the nerves; and it was immoral to justify slavery on the grounds that Negroes were ©less intelligent© when their ©imbecility© was likely to be due to ©lack of civilization and we have given them our vices©. Cuvier©s judgment drew heavily on personal experience: his own African servant was ©intelligent©, freedom-loving, disciplined, literate, ©never drunk©, and always good-humoured. Skin colour, he argued, was a product of relative exposure to sunlight.2 A decade later, however, Cuvier (1978:173-4) was ©no longer in doubt© that the ©races of the human species© were characterized by systematic anatomical differences which probably determined their ©moral and intellectual faculties©; moreover, ©experience© seemed to confirm the racial nexus between mental ©perfection© and physical ©beauty©. The intellectual somersault of this renowned savant epitomizes the theme of this chapter which sets a broad scene for the volume as a whole. From a brief semantic history of ©race© in several western European languages, I trace the genesis of the modernist biological conception of the term and its normalization by comparative anatomists, geographers, naturalists, and anthropologists between 1750 and 1880. The chapter title Ð ©climate to crania© Ð and the introductory anecdote condense a major discursive shift associated with the altered meaning of race: the metamorphosis of prevailing Enlightenment ideas about externally induced variation within an essentially similar humanity into a science of race that reified human difference as permanent, hereditary, and innately somatic.