cap 1 intro a antro forense por ubelaker

7/27/2019 Cap 1 Intro a Antro Forense Por Ubelaker

1/10

Introduction to Forensic Anthropology 3

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

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, tienne Rollet, LeonceManouvrier, and Karl Pearson published research on the methodology of stature esti-

mation and related topics.In North America, Thomas Dwight, Ales Hrdlicka, 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 AmericanAcademy 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 theworld. 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.


2/10

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 helpdetermine 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 fromfleshed remains. Forensic anthropology brings to a case techniques andexperience in the interpretation of skeletal remains as well as a worldwidecomparative 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 (19011907) defined forensic anthropology asthat branch of physical anthropology, which, for forensic purposes, dealswith the identification of more or less skeletonized remains known to be, orsuspected of being, human (1). This definition reflects the thinking at the

time regarding the nature of cases usually examined and the distinction betweenthe 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 agreedwith 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 forensicanthropologists 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 physicalanthropology and related specialties within forensic science. Before the late18th century and continuing to some extent subsequently, skeletal analysis

within a forensic context was mostly an applied area of anatomy. Anatomistsand physicians would apply their knowledge of skeletal anatomy and its varia-tion as best they could using general knowledge, the few techniques that existedin textbooks, and their experience.


3/10


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 Louvrein Paris. In 1755, he published measurements of cadavers ranging in age fromfetus to young adult. Although the intention was to provide artists with accu-rate information on body proportions and how such proportions changed withage, the work launched an important French interest, leading to research onstature calculation (3). Sues measurements reached a wider audience throughpublication by Matthieu-Joseph-Bonaventure Orfila in two medicolegal text-books in the early 19th century (4,5). Orfila supplemented Sues measure-

ments with his own, and for many years, the two databases comprised thesources used by the medicolegal community to evaluate stature from incom-plete remains. As Stewart (6) has noted, some confusion resulted from Suesuse of the old French system of measurement (pied,pouce, ligne, etc.) vs themetric system employed by Orfila, but a nascent science of developing tech-niques aimed specifically at skeletal analysis was launched.

In 1859, Paul Broca (18241880) founded, in Paris, the worlds firstofficial organization of physical anthropology, the Socit dAnthropologie

de Paris. Broca is perhaps best known for his work in neuroanatomy, and likeother founding members of the Socit, he was trained in medicine, yet herecognized the need for understanding human variation and putting skeletalinterpretation 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).

Brocas successor, Paul Topinard (18301911), 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 tienne Rollet (9), who compared long-bone lengthswith cadaver length in a sample of 50 males and 50 females. These data werethen organized into tabular form and published (10) by Leonce Manouvrier(18501927) and widely utilized subsequently.

English input into the development of forensic anthropology came inthe form of Karl Pearsons regression theory. Like Manouvrier, Pearson (11)utilized Rollets long-bone/cadaver length data, but presented them in the

form of regression equations. Pearsons 1899 monograph, as well as much ofthe biometrical school that followed, focused on evolutionary issues, but thesedevelopments greatly influenced the future development of forensic anthro-pology. Much of the subsequent effort in Europe in physical anthropology


4/10

6 Ubelaker

focused on paleoanthropology, growth and development, and studies ofarcheologically 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 physicalanthropology to assess the parentage of displaced children and those of dis-puted paternity. According to Schwidetzky (12), as many as 2500 opinionswere presented to the courts by anthropologists each year on these issues. Shetraces the first such opinion back to Professor Otto Reche in 1926, who wasthen director of the Anthropological Institute at Vienna. Courts in Austriaand Germany subsequently emphasized the importance of anthropologicalanalysis in such cases (12).

3.2. Developments in America

As in Europe, early practitioners of forensic anthropology in the UnitedStates represented anatomists and medical specialists who were drawn intocasework. A case in point is Jeffries Wyman (18141874), the Hersey Pro-fessor of Anatomy at Harvard and first curator of the Peabody Museum ofAmerican Archaeology and Ethnology in 1866, who studied human remains

recovered in a sensational murder investigation at Harvard (14). Dr. GeorgeParkman, a physician and wealthy donor to the university, who also ran aloan business, was murdered by Harvard faculty member John W. Webster,who failed to make loan payments. Apparently, after killing Parkman, Websterremoved some body parts and burned them in the furnace of his laboratory.Wyman was called in to identify the burned remains and demonstrate thatthey were consistent with those parts removed from the body (14).

American research aimed directly at issues of forensic anthropology was

initiated by Thomas Dwight (18431911), upon whom Stewart (1) bestowedthe title Father of American Forensic Anthropology. Like Wyman, Dwightwas trained in anatomy and taught at Harvard. In fact, Dwight held the ParkmanProfessorship of Anatomy at Harvard and taught at the medical school thathouses the laboratory where Parkman was killed, which was built on the landParkman donated. Dwight became the first American anatomist to researchissues relative to forensic anthropology. After winning a prize for an essay onthe medicolegal identification of the human skeleton in 1878 (15), Dwight

published a series of important articles (1621) on issues of estimation ofsex, age at death, and stature.George A. Dorsey (18681931) 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


5/10


recovered human remains, and, like Wyman, he participated in at least onehigh-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). Smallfragments were recovered that Dorsey felt were consistent with the missingadult female. His testimony was severely challenged by other experts, andDorsey did not contribute further to forensic anthropology (1).

3.3. Ales Hrdlicka

Ales Hrdlicka (18691943) immigrated to the United States in 1881 fromhis birthplace in Humpolec, Bohemia. After receiving a medical degree in1892, Hrdlicka gradually shifted his interest from medical subjects to anthro-pology, and became the first curator of the physical anthropology division atthe Smithsonian Institution in Washington, DC, where he worked from 1903until his death in 1943. While at the Smithsonian, Hrdlicka became a majorfigure 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, theAmerican Journal ofPhysical Anthropology, in 1918. Although Hrdlicka was a prodigious re-searcher, he was generally not well-known for his contributions to forensicanthropology. Largely, Hrdlickas contributions to forensic issues were over-shadowed by the magnitude of his work in other areas of anthropology andmedicine (23).

In 1896, Hrdlicka studied in Paris at Brocas Institute (Ecole dAnthro-pologie) and was so impressed that he hoped to found a similar institute inWashington (24). While in Paris, Hrdlicka studied with Manouvrier (6) and

visited the laboratory of Alphonse Bertillon (18531914), where anthropo-metric measurements and observations were utilized for human identification (23).Hrdlickas 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 inArgentina. From 1914 to about 1920, Hrdlicka was involved in legal issues ofancestry 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 expertisecame to the attention of his Washington neighbor, the FBI, who subsequentlyconsulted with him on many forensic cases involving skeletal remains. Hrdlickainitiated a tradition of consultation between the FBI Headquarters in Wash-ington and the Smithsonian that was maintained after Hrdlickas death by T.


6/10

8 Ubelaker

D. Stewart (25,26) and J. Lawrence Angel (19151986) [27,28]), and contin-ues today through the authors consultation.

Hrdlickas research included such forensic-related topics as anatomicalevidence (or lack thereof) for insanity and criminal behavior (influenced bythe work of the Italian Cesare Lombroso [18351909]), anthropometry, andtechniques for estimating age, sex, stature, and ancestry. Various revisions ofhis text Practical Anthropometry increasingly included forensic-relatedmaterial; the 1939 edition acquired a section on Anthropometry and Medi-cine and Anthropometric Identifications. This edition was published thesame year as Wilton Krogmans (19031987)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). Thesekey 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 Hrdlickas and Krogmans work, and subsequently, that ofStewart (1), research and interest in American forensic anthropology gradu-ally increased. World War II and subsequent military conflicts generatedthe 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 offorensic anthropology in identification and generated new research. Notableexamples of the latter include Trotters work on improving stature estima-tion methods (29) and McKern and Stewarts classic 1957 monograph onskeletal 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 1972formation of the physical anthropology section of the American Academy ofForensic Sciences (AAFS). Through an effort initiated by Ellis R. Kerley(19241998), 14 colleagues agreed to comprise the entry class of the newsection of physical anthropology in the worlds 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 AssociationsJournal of Forensic Sciences became more available to publish research results.Membership in the section grew rapidly and by 2004, reached more than 260members.


7/10


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 aninitial membership of only five members, the charge of the ABFA was toregulate the practice of forensic anthropology, promote the acceptance ofquality forensic anthropology in the legal system, and accredit individualsqualified as forensic anthropologists (32). By 2004, 68 individuals were cer-tified as diplomates by the ABFA. Certification requires residence in the UnitedStates 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 forensicanthropology was comparatively less in other anthropological associationsand journals (33). Public exposure to the field through mass-market volumesand television has greatly stimulated public and student interest, generatingincreased 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 colleaguesshared similar experiences. Growth of the science brought recognition tothe worldwide variation in many of the attributes studied and the difficul-ties inherent in applying research conducted from a sample in one part ofthe 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) wasformed as a subsection of the International Academy of Legal Medicine. Thisnewly formed organization promises to promote the science in Europe in amanner similar to the ABFA. In 2004, the FASE sponsored its first training

seminar in collaboration with the Smithsonian Institution, a follow-up to aseries of biannual seminars conducted in previous years by the Smithsonianand institutions in France. The FASE conducted its first scientific meeting inGermany in the fall of 2004.


8/10

10 Ubelaker

4. SUMMARY

In its early history, the antecedents of forensic anthropology were com-ponents of forensic medicine, practiced by anatomists and physicians. Withthe birth and growth of physical anthropology/forensic anthropology and theincreasing specialization of all fields of forensic science, distinctions havegrown. One hundred thirty-eight years have passed since the anatomist JeffriesWyman 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 autopsy table or in the laboratory.

This book documents the growth, sophistication, and specialization ofthese 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 theUnited States. Charles C. Thomas Publisher, Springfield, IL, 1979.

2. Snow, C. C. Forensic anthropology. In: Redfield, A., ed., Anthropology Beyond theUniversity, Southern Anthropological Society Proceedings, No. 7. Southern Anthro-pological Society, Athens, GA, pp. 417, 1973.

3. Sue, J.-J. Sur les proportions des squelette de homme, examin depuis lge de plustendre, jusqu B celui de vingt cinq, soixante ans, & audel [in French]. Acad. Sci.Paris Mem Mathemat. Phys. Present. Divers Savants 2:572585, 1755.

4. Orfila, M. J. B. Leons de Mdicine Lgale, 2 vols. [In French.] Bchet Jeune, Paris,18211823.

5. Orfila, M. J. B., Lesueur, O. Trait des exhumations juridiques, et considrations sur

les changements physiques que les cadavres prouvent en se pourrissant dans laterre, dans leau, dans les fosses daisance et dans le fumier, 2 vols. [In French.]Bchet 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 AnthropologyAssociation, no. 10. American Anthropological Association, Washington, D.C.,pp. 7079, 1977.

7. Spencer, F. Broca, Paul (Pierre) (18241880). In: Spencer, F., ed., History of Physi-cal Anthropology, Vol. 1. Garland, New York, NY, pp. 221222, 1997.

8. Topinard, P. lements danthropologie gnrale [in French]. Delahaye & Lecrosnier,Paris, 1885.9. Rollet, . De la mensuration des os longs des membres dans ses rapports avec

lanthropologie, la clinique et la mdicine judiciaire [in French]. Lyon, 1889.


9/10


10. Manouvrier, L. La dtermination de la taille daprs des grands os des membres [inFrench]. Mem. Soc. Anthropol, Paris, 4 Ser. II:347402, 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. 192:169244, 1899.12. Schwidetzky, I. Forensic anthropology in Germany. Hum. Biol. 26:120, 1954.13. Rsing, F. W. The forensic relevance of skeletal biology: taxonomy of individuals

and kinship reconstruction. In: Bonte, J. W., ed., Advances in Forensic Sciences,Vol. 7: Forensic Ondontology and Anthropology. Kster, Berlin, pp. 15, 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. 169183, 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 15:327330, 1881.

17. Dwight, T. The sternum as an index of sex, height and age. J. Anat. Physiol. Lond24:527535, 1890.

18. Dwight, T. The closure of the cranial sutures as a sign of age. Boston Med. Surg. J.122:389392, 1890.

19. Dwight, T. Methods of estimating the height from parts of the skeleton. Med. Rec.46:293296, 1894.

20. Dwight, T. The range and significance of variations in the human skeleton. BostonMed. Surg. J. 13:361389, 1894.

21. Dwight, T. The size of the articular surfaces of the long bones as characteristic of sex:an anthropological study. Am. J. Anat. 4:1932, 1905.

22. Ubelaker, D. George Amos Dorsey. In: Garraty, J. A., Carnes, M. C., eds., AmericanNational Biography, Vol. 6. Oxford University Press, New York, NY, pp. 764765,1999.

23. Ubelaker, D. H. Ales Hrdlickas role in the history of forensic anthropology. J.Forensic Sci. 44:724730, 1999.

24. Stewart, T. D. Hrdlickas dream of an American institute of physical anthropology.

In: Novotny, V. V., ed., Proceedings of the 2nd Anthropological Congress dedicatedto Dr. Ales Hrdlicka, held in Prague and Humpolec, 37 September 1979. Univer-sitas Carolina Pragensis, Praha, pp. 1921, 1982.

25. Ubelaker, D. H. The forensic anthropology legacy of T. Dale Stewart (19011997).J. Forensic Sci. 45:245252, 2000.

26. Ubelaker, D. H. T. Dale Stewarts perspective on his career as a forensic anthropolo-gist at the Smithsonian. J. Forensic Sci. 45:269278, 2000.

27. Ubelaker, D. H. J. Lawrence Angel and the development of forensic anthropologyin 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. 191200, 1990.28. Ubelaker, D. H. Angel, J(ohn) Lawrence (19151986). In: Spencer, F., ed., History

of Physical Anthropology, Vol. 1. Garland Publishing, New York, NY, pp. 7677, 1997.


10/10

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. 7183, 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 ResearchDivision, Natick, MA, 1957.

31. Ubelaker, D. H. Contributions of Ellis R. Kerley to forensic anthropology. J. Foren-sic Sci. 46:773776, 2001.

32. Ubelaker, D. H. Skeletons testify: anthropology in forensic science, AAPA lun-cheon address: April 12, 1996. Yearb. Phys. Anthropol. 39:229244, 1996.

33. Buikstra, J. E., King, J. L., Nystrom, K. C. Forensic anthropology and bioarchaeology

in the American Anthropologist: rare but exquisite gems. Am. Anthropol. 105:3852, 2003.34. Prieto, J. L., Magaa, C., Ubelaker, D. H. Interpretation of postmortem change in

cadavers in Spain. J. Forensic Sci. 49:918923, 2004.35. Ubelaker, D. H., Smialek, J. E. The interface of forensic anthropology and forensic

pathology in trauma interpretation. In: Steadman, D. W., ed., Hard Evidence, CaseStudies in Forensic Anthropology. Prentice Hall, Saddle River, NJ, pp. 155159,2003.

cap 1 intro a antro forense por ubelaker

Documents