sign in sign up
<<
Home , Forensic anthropology, Paul Broca

Introduction to Forensic 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, , 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 of Europe in asso- ciation with the International Academy of Legal 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 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 /forensic medicine. Snow (2) offered a somewhat broader definition of forensic anthropol- ogy to include applications to “problems of .” He agreed with Stewart that skeletal remains constituted the usual object of inquiry; however, on occasion, forensic 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 . Before the late 18th century and continuing to some extent subsequently, skeletal analysis within a forensic context was mostly an applied area of . 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 . In 1755, he published measurements of 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 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 , 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 and 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, and, like Wyman, he participated in at least one high-profile forensic case. Just after joining the faculty at the Field Columbian Museum in Chicago in 1896, Dorsey testified in the trial of a Chicago sau- sage producer who was accused of murdering his wife and attempting to dis- pose of the remains by cooking them in a vat at the factory (22). Small fragments were recovered that Dorsey felt were consistent with the missing adult female. His testimony was severely challenged by other experts, and Dorsey did not contribute further to forensic anthropology (1). 3.3. Aleˇs Hrdliˇcka Aleˇs Hrdliˇcka (1869–1943) immigrated to the United States in 1881 from his birthplace in Humpolec, Bohemia. After receiving a medical degree in 1892, Hrdliˇcka gradually shifted his interest from medical subjects to anthro- pology, and became the first curator of the physical anthropology division at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, DC, where he worked from 1903 until his death in 1943. While at the Smithsonian, Hrdliˇcka became a major figure in the formation and professionalization of American physical anthro- pology. He founded the American Association of Physical Anthropology, which met for the first time in 1930, and its journal, the American Journal of Physical Anthropology, in 1918. Although Hrdliˇcka was a prodigious re- searcher, he was generally not well-known for his contributions to forensic anthropology. Largely, Hrdliˇcka’s contributions to forensic issues were over- shadowed by the magnitude of his work in other areas of anthropology and medicine (23). In 1896, Hrdliˇcka studied in Paris at Broca’s Institute (Ecole d’Anthro- pologie) and was so impressed that he hoped to found a similar institute in Washington (24). While in Paris, Hrdliˇcka studied with Manouvrier (6) and visited the laboratory of Alphonse Bertillon (1853–1914), where anthropo- metric measurements and observations were utilized for human identification (23). Hrdliˇcka’s court testimony and involvement with forensic issues date back to 1896, when he testified in a jury trial on epilepsy and insanity issues. He offered an opinion on a skeletal forensic case in 1910, while traveling in Argentina. From 1914 to about 1920, Hrdliˇcka was involved in legal issues of ancestry among contemporary American Indians, especially the Chippewa. In 1932, he conducted trauma analysis of a recovered cranium and attempted a skull/photograph comparison to assist identification. In 1936, his expertise came to the attention of his Washington neighbor, the FBI, who subsequently consulted with him on many forensic cases involving skeletal remains. Hrdliˇcka initiated a tradition of consultation between the FBI Headquarters in Wash- ington and the Smithsonian that was maintained after Hrdliˇcka’s death by T. 8 Ubelaker

D. Stewart (25,26) and J. Lawrence Angel (1915–1986) [27,28]), and contin- ues today through the author’s consultation. Hrdliˇcka’s research included such forensic-related topics as anatomical evidence (or lack thereof) for insanity and criminal behavior (influenced by the work of the Italian Cesare Lombroso [1835–1909]), , and techniques for estimating age, sex, stature, and ancestry. Various revisions of his text Practical Anthropometry increasingly included forensic-related material; the 1939 edition acquired a section on “Anthropometry and Medi- cine” and “Anthropometric Identifications.” This edition was published the same year as Wilton Krogman’s (1903–1987) A Guide to the Identification of Human Skeletal Material, which has been cited as inaugurating a new profes- sional period in the history of American forensic anthropology (1,14). These key 1939 publications presented detailed information on techniques of skel- etal analysis and served to inaugurate more general interest in the applica- tions of physical anthropology to forensic issues. Through Hrdliˇcka’s and Krogman’s work, and subsequently, that of Stewart (1), research and interest in American forensic anthropology gradu- ally increased. World War II and subsequent military conflicts generated the need to identify recovered human remains; consultations by anthropolo- gists and the formation of identification laboratories followed. These de- velopments documented the recognition of the importance of techniques of forensic anthropology in identification and generated new research. Notable examples of the latter include Trotter’s work on improving stature estima- tion methods (29) and McKern and Stewart’s classic 1957 monograph on skeletal age changes in young American males who died in the Korean con- flict (30). 3.4. Physical Anthropology Section of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences A key development in the history of forensic anthropology was the 1972 formation of the physical anthropology section of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS). Through an effort initiated by Ellis R. Kerley (1924–1998), 14 colleagues agreed to comprise the entry class of the new section of physical anthropology in the world’s premier organization of foren- sic science (31). For the first time, forensic anthropologists could gather to report their research and casework at an annual meeting. The Association’s Journal of Forensic Sciences became more available to publish research results. Membership in the section grew rapidly and by 2004, reached more than 260 members. Introduction to Forensic Anthropology 9

3.5. American Board of Forensic Anthropology In 1977, the American Board of Forensic Anthropology (ABFA) formed to help develop standards for the recognition of expertise in the field. With an initial membership of only five members, the charge of the ABFA was to regulate the practice of forensic anthropology, promote the acceptance of quality forensic anthropology in the legal system, and accredit individuals qualified as forensic anthropologists (32). By 2004, 68 individuals were cer- tified as diplomates by the ABFA. Certification requires residence in the United States or Canada, a relevant doctorate in anthropology, experience in the field, and successful completion of an examination. Professional activity with the AAFS and the ABFA has stimulated con- siderable new research and training. Whereas professional activity intensi- fied in association with the AAFS, it can be argued that the visibility of forensic anthropology was comparatively less in other anthropological associations and journals (33). Public exposure to the field through mass-market volumes and television has greatly stimulated public and student interest, generating increased treatment of the field in university academic departments and medi- colegal investigation.

3.6. Back in Europe Although much of the recent academic growth of forensic anthropol- ogy has taken place in North America, European institutions and colleagues shared similar experiences. Growth of the science brought recognition to the worldwide variation in many of the attributes studied and the difficul- ties inherent in applying research conducted from a sample in one part of the world to forensic cases in another. Regional studies have begun to docu- ment aspects of this variation, making forensic anthropology a stronger sci- ence (34).

3.7. Forensic Anthropology Society of Europe In 2003, the Forensic Anthropology Society of Europe (FASE) was formed as a subsection of the International Academy of Legal Medicine. This newly formed organization promises to promote the science in Europe in a manner similar to the ABFA. In 2004, the FASE sponsored its first training seminar in collaboration with the Smithsonian Institution, a follow-up to a series of biannual seminars conducted in previous years by the Smithsonian and institutions in France. The FASE conducted its first scientific meeting in Germany in the fall of 2004. 10 Ubelaker

4. SUMMARY In its early history, the antecedents of forensic anthropology were com- ponents of forensic medicine, practiced by anatomists and physicians. With the birth and growth of physical anthropology/forensic anthropology and the increasing specialization of all fields of forensic science, distinctions have grown. One hundred thirty-eight years have passed since the anatomist Jeffries Wyman was called into court to help identify skeletal remains in Massachu- setts. Today, the science of forensic anthropology and other aspects of foren- sic medicine have created specialists who now collaborate in resolving cases (35), at times working side by side at the table or in the laboratory. This book documents the growth, sophistication, and specialization of these fields, but also demonstrates how the distinct expertise and methodol- ogy need to be integrated in resolving forensic problems. With such interac- tion and collaboration, the whole becomes greater than the parts.

REFERENCES 1. Stewart, T. D., Essentials of Forensic Anthropology: Especially as Developed in the United States. Charles C. Thomas Publisher, Springfield, IL, 1979. 2. Snow, C. C. Forensic anthropology. In: Redfield, A., ed., Anthropology Beyond the University, Southern Anthropological Society Proceedings, No. 7. Southern Anthro- pological Society, Athens, GA, pp. 4–17, 1973. 3. Sue, J.-J. Sur les proportions des squelette de homme, examiné depuis l’âge de plus tendre, jusqu’ B celui de vingt cinq, soixante ans, & audel [in French]. Acad. Sci. Paris Mem Mathemat. Phys. Present. Divers Savants 2:572–585, 1755. 4. Orfila, M. J. B. Leáons de Médicine Légale, 2 vols. [In French.] Béchet Jeune, Paris, 1821–1823. 5. Orfila, M. J. B., Lesueur, O. Traité des exhumations juridiques, et considérations sur les changements physiques que les cadavres éprouvent en se pourrissant dans la terre, dans l’eau, dans les fosses d’aisance et dans le fumier, 2 vols. [In French.] Béchet Jeune, Paris, 1831. 6. Stewart, T. D. History of physical anthropology. In: Wallace, A. F. C., ed., Perspec- tives on Anthropology, 1976. Special publication of the American Anthropology Association, no. 10. American Anthropological Association, Washington, D.C., pp. 70–79, 1977. 7. Spencer, F. Broca, Paul (Pierre) (1824–1880). In: Spencer, F., ed., History of Physi- cal Anthropology, Vol. 1. Garland, New York, NY, pp. 221–222, 1997. 8. Topinard, P. Élements d’anthropologie générale [in French]. Delahaye & Lecrosnier, Paris, 1885. 9. Rollet, É. De la mensuration des os longs des membres dans ses rapports avec l’anthropologie, la clinique et la médicine judiciaire [in French]. Lyon, 1889. Introduction to Forensic Anthropology 11

10. Manouvrier, L. La détermination de la taille d’aprés des grands os des membres [in French]. Mem. Soc. Anthropol, Paris, 4 Ser. II:347–402, 1893. 11. Pearson, K. Mathematical contributions to the theory of evolution: on the reconstruc- tion of the stature of prehistoric races. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. 192:169–244, 1899. 12. Schwidetzky, I. Forensic anthropology in Germany. Hum. Biol. 26:1–20, 1954. 13. Rösing, F. W. The forensic relevance of skeletal biology: taxonomy of individuals and reconstruction. In: Bonte, J. W., ed., Advances in Forensic Sciences, Vol. 7: Forensic Ondontology and Anthropology. Köster, Berlin, pp. 1–5, 1995. 14. Stewart, T. D. Forensic anthropology. In: Goldschmidt, W., ed., The Uses of Anthro- pology, Special Publication of the American Anthropology Association, no. 11. American Anthropological Association, Washington, D.C., pp. 169–183, 1979. 15. Dwight, T. The Identification of the Human Skeleton. A Medico-Legal Study. Boston, 1878. 16. Dwight, T. The sternum as an index of sex and age. J. Anat. Physiol. Lond 15:327– 330, 1881. 17. Dwight, T. The sternum as an index of sex, height and age. J. Anat. Physiol. Lond 24:527–535, 1890. 18. Dwight, T. The closure of the cranial sutures as a sign of age. Boston Med. Surg. J. 122:389–392, 1890. 19. Dwight, T. Methods of estimating the height from parts of the skeleton. Med. Rec. 46:293–296, 1894. 20. Dwight, T. The range and significance of variations in the human skeleton. Boston Med. Surg. J. 13:361–389, 1894. 21. Dwight, T. The size of the articular surfaces of the long as characteristic of sex: an anthropological study. Am. J. Anat. 4:19–32, 1905. 22. Ubelaker, D. George Amos Dorsey. In: Garraty, J. A., Carnes, M. C., eds., American National Biography, Vol. 6. , New York, NY, pp. 764–765, 1999. 23. Ubelaker, D. H. Aleˇs Hrdliˇcka’s role in the history of forensic anthropology. J. Forensic Sci. 44:724–730, 1999. 24. Stewart, T. D. Hrdliˇcka’s dream of an American institute of physical anthropology. In: Novotn´y, V. V., ed., Proceedings of the 2nd Anthropological Congress dedicated to Dr. Aleˇs Hrdliˇcka, held in Prague and Humpolec, 3–7 September 1979. Univer- sitas Carolina Pragensis, Praha, pp. 19–21, 1982. 25. Ubelaker, D. H. The forensic anthropology legacy of T. Dale Stewart (1901–1997). J. Forensic Sci. 45:245–252, 2000. 26. Ubelaker, D. H. T. Dale Stewart’s perspective on his career as a forensic anthropolo- gist at the Smithsonian. J. Forensic Sci. 45:269–278, 2000. 27. Ubelaker, D. H. J. Lawrence Angel and the development of forensic anthropology in the United States. In: Buikstra, J. E., ed., A Life in Science: Papers in Honor of J. Lawrence Angel, Scientific Papers 6. Center for American Archeology, Kampsville, IL, pp. 191–200, 1990. 28. Ubelaker, D. H. Angel, J(ohn) Lawrence (1915–1986). In: Spencer, F., ed., History of Physical Anthropology, Vol. 1. Garland Publishing, New York, NY, pp. 76–77, 1997. 12 Ubelaker

29. Trotter, M. Estimation of stature from intact long limb bones. In: Stewart, T. D., ed., Personal Identification in Mass Disasters. National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., pp. 71–83, 1970. 30. McKern, T. W., Stewart, T. D. Skeletal Age Changes in Young American Males: Analyzed from the Standpoint of Age Identification, Report No. EP-45. Quarter- master Research and Development Center, Environmental Protection Research Division, Natick, MA, 1957. 31. Ubelaker, D. H. Contributions of Ellis R. Kerley to forensic anthropology. J. Foren- sic Sci. 46:773–776, 2001. 32. Ubelaker, D. H. Skeletons testify: anthropology in forensic science, AAPA lun- cheon address: April 12, 1996. Yearb. Phys. Anthropol. 39:229–244, 1996. 33. Buikstra, J. E., King, J. L., Nystrom, K. C. Forensic anthropology and in the American : rare but exquisite gems. Am. Anthropol. 105: 38–52, 2003. 34. Prieto, J. L., Magaña, C., Ubelaker, D. H. Interpretation of postmortem change in cadavers in Spain. J. Forensic Sci. 49:918–923, 2004. 35. Ubelaker, D. H., Smialek, J. E. The interface of forensic anthropology and in trauma interpretation. In: Steadman, D. W., ed., Hard Evidence, Case Studies in Forensic Anthropology. Prentice Hall, Saddle River, NJ, pp. 155–159, 2003.