Introduction to Forensic Anthropology

Chapter 1

Introduction to
Forensic Anthropology
Douglas H. Ubelaker
Summary
The academic roots of modern forensic anthropology can be traced back to contributions of Europeans, beginning in the 18th century. In particular, Jean-Joseph Sue,
Matthieu-Joseph-Bonaventure Orfila, Paul Broca, Paul Topinard, tienne Rollet, Leonce
Manouvrier, and Karl Pearson published research on the methodology of stature estimation 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 developments were the establishment of the physical anthropgy section of the American
Academy of Forensic Sciences in 1972 and the American Board of Forensic Anthropology in 1977, as well as many publications focusing specifically on issues of forensic anthropology.
Professional activity in forensic anthropology continues to grow throughout the
world. The formation in 2003 of the Forensic Anthropology Society of Europe in association with the International Academy of Legal Medicine demonstrates the strength of
such activity, and suggests that through regional research and casework, forensic anthropology 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

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.

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 variation as best they could using general knowledge, the few techniques that existed
in textbooks, and their experience.

Introduction to Forensic Anthropology

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 accurate 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). Sues measurements reached a wider audience through
publication by Matthieu-Joseph-Bonaventure Orfila in two medicolegal textbooks in the early 19th century (4,5). Orfila supplemented Sues measurements with his own, and for many years, the two databases comprised the
sources used by the medicolegal community to evaluate stature from incomplete remains. As Stewart (6) has noted, some confusion resulted from Sues
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 techniques aimed specifically at skeletal analysis was launched.
In 1859, Paul Broca (18241880) founded, in Paris, the worlds first
official organization of physical anthropology, the Socit dAnthropologie
de Paris. Broca is perhaps best known for his work in neuroanatomy, and like
other founding members of the Socit, 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 quantification of skeletal measurements, and initiated training and discussion in comparative skeletal anatomy (7).
Brocas successor, Paul Topinard (18301911), included in a new textbook of physical anthropology (8) a section on stature estimation, which
strengthened interest in these techniques. This effort was followed by a doctoral thesis in Lyon by tienne 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
(18501927) and widely utilized subsequently.
English input into the development of forensic anthropology came in
the 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 of
the biometrical school that followed, focused on evolutionary issues, but these
developments greatly influenced the future development of forensic anthropology. Much of the subsequent effort in Europe in physical anthropology

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).

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 (18141874), the Hersey Professor 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 (18431911), 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 (1621) on issues of estimation of
sex, age at death, and stature.
George A. Dorsey (18681931) appears to represent the first anthropologically trained professional to become involved in forensic matters. Holding a Harvard doctorate, Dorsey conducted some research on archeologically

Introduction to Forensic Anthropology

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).

3.3. Ales Hrdlicka

Ales Hrdlicka (18691943) immigrated to the United States in 1881 from
his birthplace in Humpolec, Bohemia. After receiving a medical degree in
1892, Hrdlicka gradually shifted his interest from medical subjects to anthropology, 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, Hrdlicka became a major
figure in the formation and professionalization of American physical anthropology. 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 Hrdlicka was a prodigious researcher, he was generally not well-known for his contributions to forensic
anthropology. Largely, Hrdlickas contributions to forensic issues were overshadowed by the magnitude of his work in other areas of anthropology and
medicine (23).
In 1896, Hrdlicka studied in Paris at Brocas Institute (Ecole dAnthropologie) and was so impressed that he hoped to found a similar institute in
Washington (24). While in Paris, Hrdlicka studied with Manouvrier (6) and
visited the laboratory of Alphonse Bertillon (18531914), where anthropometric 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 in
Argentina. From 1914 to about 1920, Hrdlicka 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. Hrdlicka
initiated a tradition of consultation between the FBI Headquarters in Washington and the Smithsonian that was maintained after Hrdlickas death by T.

Ubelaker

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

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
(19241998), 14 colleagues agreed to comprise the entry class of the new
section of physical anthropology in the worlds premier organization of forensic science (31). For the first time, forensic anthropologists could gather to
report their research and casework at an annual meeting. The Associations
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

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 certified 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 considerable new research and training. Whereas professional activity intensified 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 medicolegal investigation.

3.6. Back in Europe

Although much of the recent academic growth of forensic anthropology 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 difficulties inherent in applying research conducted from a sample in one part of
the world to forensic cases in another. Regional studies have begun to document aspects of this variation, making forensic anthropology a stronger science (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 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.

Introduction to Forensic Anthropology

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. 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 dedicated
to Dr. Ales Hrdlicka, 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.