Download Alan Vincent Forensic Anthropology This paper is an examination of

Alan Vincent
Forensic Anthropology
This paper is an examination of forensic anthropology, a
subfield of physical anthropology that applies physical
anthropology for use in forensics. In this paper, we will
briefly examine the history of the field, practical uses of
forensic anthropology, and the techniques utilized by a forensic
anthropologist to identify the remains of a human being.
History
The first use of anthropology in a forensic capacity may have
been at the end of the 19th century by the Italian physician
Cesare Lombroso, who inaccurately stated that criminals could be
easily identified by anatomical stigmata (Snow).
Following the
initial failure by Lombroso, a French anthropologist Alphonse
Bertillon devised a new way to identify criminals by using a
series of 11 anthropometric measurements (known as the
Bertillonage system) to create a description of criminal.
This
system was adopted by police until the 1920’s when
fingerprinting was introduced (Snow).
Not to be deterred by these false starts, in 1978 Thomas Dwight
(sometimes referred to as the father of forensic anthropology)
published The Identification of the Human Skeleton: A
Medicolegal Study followed by a series of papers over the next 2
decades – two (one dealing with age and sex difference in the
sternum and the other in sex differences in articular surfaces
of long bones) are still used today (Snow).
In 1939, Wolton
Krogman published Guide to the Identification of Human Skeletal
Material, which later assisted physical anthropologists with
identification of victims of the Second World War (Bidmos).
In
1949,a physical anthropology section was added to the American
Academy of Forensic sciences (Snow), and by 1987 forensic
anthropology had fully developed and had it’s own section a the
meeting of the International Association of Forensic Sciences
(Bidmos).
Practical Uses
Today forensic anthropology is used for a variety of reasons.
Criminal cases, war crimes, and identifying remains of large
scale disasters are all common reasons for calling in a forensic
anthropologist (Bidmos).
In criminal cases a forensic
anthropologist may be called in when human remains are found
during archaeological excavation, or when badly decomposed,
burned or skeletonized remains are found by law enforcement or
members of the public (Adebisi). One of the early cases of this
that was made famous was of the prosecution of Adolph Luetgert
in 1897. Luetgert was accused of killing his wife and disposing
of her body in his sausage factory.
When bones were found in
his factory, an anthropologist named George Dorsey was able to
identify the fragments of a metatarsal bone, toe phalanx,
sesamoid and rib head as those belonging to a human female.
This was much to the dismay of the defense who had contended
that the bones were those of animals (Snow).
In 2005 an example of forensic anthropology was used in
identifying the Kurdish victims in a mass Iraqi grave.
Christopher King and his colleagues examined the 114 skeletons
finding only 30 adults – 2 men, and 28 women.
victims were children.
The remaining
King was able to discover that a few
victims were tied or blindfolded, and the rest stood at the side
of the grave and were mowed down by AK-47 assault rifles.
As a
result of these findings, Saddam Hussein, Ali Hassan al-Majid
al-Tikriti and 5 others were tried on charges of genocide and
crimes against humanity (Pringle).
Forensic anthropology assists in disasters to identify the
deceased and allow their remains to be returned to their
families for proper recognition, religious observances,
grieving, and judicial matters of estate (Wilkinson) to it can
also help with understanding why they were victims and help
reshape policy. During the reconstruction of a disaster cultural
factors are often discovered that may explain why the victims
were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
In addition, factors
such as discrimination (as in the case of who gets food during
famine) may be discovered which can shape future policy to
prevent disasters from occurring again (Oliver-Smith).
Techniques
When a forensic anthropologist is presented with a case, the
anthropologist will follow a protocol that is best outlined as a
sequence of questions: (Snow)

Are the remains human?

Do they represent a single or group of individuals?

When did death occur?

How old was the person?

What was their race?

What was their Sex?

What was their stature, weight, physique?

Are there any significant anatomical anomalies that can
help with identification?

Cause of death?

Manner of death? (natural, accident, suicide, homicide,
unknown)
To answer the first two questions, an examination of the teeth
and bones are most common.
Anatomical variety in populations
and the fact that no two skeletons are identical allow the
anthropologist to observe patterns of unique skeletal traits
that assists with identification (Adebisi). In addition, DNA
evidence can now be used to identify the remains, or at least
what population they came from (Bosveld).
difficult to answer.
Time of death is more
Weathering and taphonomy can help
determine the age of bones.
In addition, knowing the acidity of
the soil and how much this has affected the bones may help.
Examination of insects and plant material around the body may
give additional clues (Adebisi).
Examination of the bones on an Osteometric board (which allows
very precise measurements of the bones) can help the forensic
anthropologist determine age, sex, stature, physique, ethnicity,
manner, and cause of death.
Individuals under the age of 20
typically do not have the ends of the epiphyses fused to the
diaphysis.
Once an individual is over 20, age can be determined
by the degree and location of cranial suture closure and the
degree of erosion of the pubic symphysis and the amount of
osteophytic lipping of the vertebral bodies.
skull and pelvis often can determine sex.
Examination of the
In general, males
have more robust, angular and prominent skulls than females.
The pelvis is the next area to look for sex identification.
Males tend to have narrow pelvic bones, whereas females tend to
have wide ones. If enough bones are found, there are a variety
of measurements that can be put together in a formula to
determine stature.
Cranial observations are most useful in
determining ethnicity and are commonly divided into 3 groups –
Asian, African, Caucasoid. (All techniques attributed to Naples)
Facial reconstruction, the artistic interpretation of human
remains to attempt to depict the face of the individual while
living, is a final step in identifying the deceased individual
(Wilkinson)
While the cause and manner of death is much more difficult
without a fleshed body, during skeletal trauma analysis, some
forensic anthropologists can accurately determine whether sharp
force, blunt force, or ballistic injury occurred before death
(antemortem), near the time of death (perimortem), or after
death (postmortem). By examining the marks left on bone,
particularly skilled forensic anthropologists may be able to
determine general class characteristics of the weapon used. A
forensic anthropologist's analysis of skeletal trauma can assist
the Medical Examiner in determining cause and manner of death
(natural, accidental, homicide, suicide) (Adebisi)
Conclusion
From it’s small beginnings slightly over 100 years ago, forensic
anthropology has become an increasingly more important field.
Through its techniques, it assists local law enforcement with
investigating crimes, governments investigating war crimes, and
helps societies in a manner of different ways following
disasters.
Through new technology such as DNA profiling, the
field is bound to expand and find a variety of new uses to
society.
References
Adebisi, S. S. (2009). Forensic Anthropology In Perspective: The Current Trend. Internet Journal Of
Forensic Science, 4(1), 4.
Bidmos, M. A., Gibbon, V. E., & Štrkalj, G. (2010). RECENT ADVANCES IN SEX IDENTIFICATION OF HUMAN
SKELETAL REMAINS IN SOUTH AFRICA. South African Journal Of Science, 106(11/12), 29-34.
doi:10.4102/sajs.v106i11/12.238
Bosveld, J., & Barth, A. (2010). Gone But Not Forgotten. Discover, 31(6), 46-52.
Naples, V. L., Breed, D., & Miller, J. S. (2010). A Skeleton Tells Its Own Story: Forensic Analyses of Skeletal
Elements for the Science Classroom Laboratory. American Biology Teacher, 72(3), 162-171.
doi:10.1525/abt.2010.72.3.7
Oliver-Smith, A. (1996). Anthropological research on hazards and disasters. Annual Review Of
Anthropology, 25(1), 303.
Pringle, H. (2009). Witness to Genocide. Archaeology, 62(1), 28-65.
Snow, C. (1982). FORENSIC ANTHROPOLOGY. Annual Review Of Anthropology, 1197-131.
Wilkinson, C. (2010). Facial reconstruction – anatomical art or artistic anatomy?. Journal Of Anatomy,
216(2), 235-250. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7580.2009.01182.x