Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Cap 1 Intro A Antro Forense Por Ubelaker
Cap 1 Intro A Antro Forense Por Ubelaker
Chapter 1
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
Ubelaker
1. INTRODUCTION
Forensic anthropology represents the application of knowledge and techniques 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 evidence of foul play. Usually, the material examined consists of largely or completely 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 (19011907) 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 established science of forensic pathology/forensic medicine. Snow (2) offered a somewhat broader definition of forensic anthropology 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 classic skeletal analysis.
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 problems (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 disputed 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).
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 sausage producer who was accused of murdering his wife and attempting to dispose 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).
Ubelaker
D. Stewart (25,26) and J. Lawrence Angel (19151986) [27,28]), and continues today through the authors consultation. Hrdli ckas 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 [18351909]), anthropometry, 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 Medicine and Anthropometric Identifications. This edition was published the same year as Wilton Krogmans (19031987) A Guide to the Identification of Human Skeletal Material, which has been cited as inaugurating a new professional period in the history of American forensic anthropology (1,14). These key 1939 publications presented detailed information on techniques of skeletal analysis and served to inaugurate more general interest in the applications of physical anthropology to forensic issues. Through Hrdli ckas and Krogmans work, and subsequently, that of Stewart (1), research and interest in American forensic anthropology gradually increased. World War II and subsequent military conflicts generated the need to identify recovered human remains; consultations by anthropologists and the formation of identification laboratories followed. These developments documented the recognition of the importance of techniques of forensic anthropology in identification and generated new research. Notable examples of the latter include Trotters work on improving stature estimation methods (29) and McKern and Stewarts classic 1957 monograph on skeletal age changes in young American males who died in the Korean conflict (30).
10
Ubelaker
4. SUMMARY
In its early history, the antecedents of forensic anthropology were components 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 Massachusetts. Today, the science of forensic anthropology and other aspects of forensic 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 of these fields, but also demonstrates how the distinct expertise and methodology need to be integrated in resolving forensic problems. With such interaction 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 Anthropological Society, Athens, GA, pp. 417, 1973. 3. Sue, J.-J. Sur les proportions des squelette de homme, examin depuis lge de plus tendre, 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 la terre, 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., Perspectives on Anthropology, 1976. Special publication of the American Anthropology Association, no. 10. American Anthropological Association, Washington, D.C., pp. 7079, 1977. 7. Spencer, F. Broca, Paul (Pierre) (18241880). In: Spencer, F., ed., History of Physical 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.
11
10. Manouvrier, L. La dtermination de la taille daprs des grands os des membres [in French]. Mem. Soc. Anthropol, Paris, 4 Ser. II:347402, 1893. 11. Pearson, K. Mathematical contributions to the theory of evolution: on the reconstruction 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 Anthropology, 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 15:327 330, 1881. 17. Dwight, T. The sternum as an index of sex, height and age. J. Anat. Physiol. Lond 24:527535, 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. Boston Med. 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., American National Biography, Vol. 6. Oxford University Press, New York, NY, pp. 764765, 1999. 23. Ubelaker, D. H. Ale s Hrdli ckas role in the history of forensic anthropology. J. Forensic Sci. 44:724730, 1999. 24. Stewart, T. D. Hrdli ckas dream of an American institute of physical anthropology. In: Novotn y, V. V., ed., Proceedings of the 2nd Anthropological Congress dedicated to Dr. Ale s Hrdli cka, held in Prague and Humpolec, 37 September 1979. Universitas 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 anthropologist at the Smithsonian. J. Forensic Sci. 45:269278, 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. 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.
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. Quartermaster Research and Development Center, Environmental Protection Research Division, Natick, MA, 1957. 31. Ubelaker, D. H. Contributions of Ellis R. Kerley to forensic anthropology. J. Forensic Sci. 46:773776, 2001. 32. Ubelaker, D. H. Skeletons testify: anthropology in forensic science, AAPA luncheon 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, Case Studies in Forensic Anthropology. Prentice Hall, Saddle River, NJ, pp. 155159, 2003.