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,