Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Introduction To Forensic Anthropology: Douglas H. Ubelaker
Introduction To Forensic Anthropology: Douglas H. Ubelaker
Introduction To Forensic Anthropology: Douglas H. Ubelaker
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, Leonce
Manouvrier, 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 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.
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 (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 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.
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 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 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. 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., Perspec-
tives 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 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.
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 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 15:327
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. 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 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. 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. 46:773776, 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, Case
Studies in Forensic Anthropology. Prentice Hall, Saddle River, NJ, pp. 155159,
2003.