Kelan Chanthasen

ANTH-1020
Final Term Paper
Forensic Anthropology
Forensic anthropology is a very interesting field of study that helps
criminal investigators or historians identify remains that would be otherwise
unidentifiable. Often forensic anthropologists are used in criminal cases and
even appear as expert witnesses in courts. Forensic anthropologists are also
used in identifying remains from genocides or natural disasters that leave a
lot of bodies. This paper will provide an overview of forensic anthropology
used in a criminal sense as well as reveal the history of forensic
anthropology, methods anthropologists use, and reveal some of the major
discoveries and current understandings in the field. A lot of people dont
think about skeletons being unique, and its very interesting to know how
much you can actually determine about a person based on their skeleton
alone.
T. D. Stewart is quoted saying that forensic anthropology is 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. The goals of a forensic anthropologist is to help in
identifying human remains and to determine what happened to the remains.
In a criminal investigation this usually involves finding evidence of foul play.

(Ubelaker, 2006) In the subfield of forensic anthropology there is a lot of

influence from other fields of study. Human osteology, human anatomy, as
well as practices from archaeology impact the work of investigators. It is a
forensic anthropologists job to determine information about skeletal remains
that will prove useful in criminal or historical investigations. This information
includes the age and sex of the person the remains belong to, height and
stature, and other conditions that the person might have been under. They
are also able to figure out the cause of death from different markings and
trauma that will be left on our body either ante mortem or postmortem.
Human anatomy is important as it shows forensic investigators how the body
is built and the way it works. Knowledge of osteology in combination with
human anatomy allows forensic anthropologists to determine a lot of
information about discovered remains. Archaeology is important when the
remains are initially being discovered, excavated, and recovered.
Archaeological practices allow for the safe recovery of remains from
disasters, archaeological sites, and from crime scenes. (Walsh-Haney, 2013).
Forensic anthropology evolved very closely alongside the basic study
of anthropology. It wasnt until the 1940s that forensic anthropology began
to be recognized as its own study. The 1940s was when professional
anthropologists started working alongside the FBI to solve many criminal
cases. Successors and innovators of forensic anthropology have actually be
reported from as early as 1755 in Europe. North American forensic
anthropology seems to have begun much more recently in 1849. The late

19th century and the early 20th century is when we start seeing the first cases
of professionally trained anthropologists becoming involved in criminal
investigations. Early forensic anthropologists were just anatomists and
medical specialists that assisted in criminal casework. World War II was an
important military conflict worldwide and really generated interest in
identifying the human remains that were recovered from wars. This, and
subsequent military conflicts, launched a new interest in forensic
anthropology. In 1977 we see the formation of the American Board of
Forensic Anthropology. Its formation was the first to develop a set of
standards to help recognize people of anthropology expertise. (Ubelaker,
2006).
There were a few early benefactors in the history of forensic
anthropology. Most notable will probably by Jeffries Wyman who was a very
important Professor of Anatomy at Harvard. He heavily assisted in the 1849
murder investigation at the university which led to the identification of
George Parkmans charred and dismembered remains. Dr. George Parkman
was a physician and donor to the university that was killed by another
Harvard faculty member by the name of John W. Webster. Wyman identified
the remains and was able to link them back to Parkmans body. (Ubelaker,
2006).
Thomas Dwight was a Professor of Anatomy at Harvard and is deemed
Father of American Forensic Anthropology. Dwight was the first American
anatomist who researched many issues relating to forensic anthropology. In

1878 he won a prize for an essay that he wrote about medicolegal

identification of the human skeleton. He also published many articles about
methods of estimating sex, age at death, and stature of the body. (Ubelaker,
2006).
In 1963 we see the involvement of a Bohemian immigrant, Ale
Hrdlika, who was the first to be involved in joint investigations between the
FBI and anthropologists. We was consulted many times by the FBI in cases
that involved skeletal remains. Because of Ale Hrdlika we now see a
cooperation between the Smithsonian and the FBI Headquarters that remains
today. Thanks to the works of Hrdlika and other anthropologists there was a
new interest in forensic anthropology. Identification laboraties started to be
built in order to help identify remains from military conflicts. (Ubelaker,
2006).
Major discoveries fall in line with other subfields of Anthropology, just
like the history does. The most basic discoveries revolve around being able
to correctly identify human remains from those of other animals. The
discoveries of sexual dimorphism between male and female human skeletons
helps accurately identify the skeletons owner. It was discovered the the
auricular surface of our os coxa changes depending on how we age. These
age related changes help in identifying the age the person was when they
died. (Walsh-Haney, 2013). In 1939 we saw the first use of facial
reconstruction by Mikial Gerasimov. He measured the different depths of

tissue on a persons face and used clay to make somewhat accurate models
of the person.
In 1869 we first saw the discovery and identification of DNA and in
1953 we saw the discovery of the double helix structure of DNA. These
important discoveries led to more investigations into human DNA and
subsequently led to DNA testing in criminal investigations. DNA testing and
linking the DNA evidence to crime scenes is a very recent discovery and
practice. The most basic testing involves DNA evidence being recovered and
analyzed from body-fluid stains and biological tissues from the crime scene.
Results from the DNA testing are then compared to DNA results from known
individuals associated with the scene. (Handbook of Forensic Services, 1999)
In some recent cases photographic evidence has been provided to
forensic anthropologists and have led to the identification and apprehension
of unknown suspects. In a specific case photographic evidence of child
pornography was recovered from a suspects phone. The perpetrators hand
and genitals were the only things visible. Investigators were able to find
markings and evidence on the body which led to the discovery of the
perpetrator. Using such photographic evidence in identifying a suspect has
resulted in a lot of ethical debate. The questions of legitimacy of these police
procedures have also been raised. (Ferguson P and Raitt F, 2013).
An array of methods are used by anthropologists when involved
in forensic investigations. Knowledge about human anatomy and human

osteology are always applied to help identify a subjects remains.

Determining the sex of a skeleton is possible do to sexual dimorphism
between male and female human skeletons. The skulls and the ossa coxae
are the most prominent differences. A female usually has a broader pubis
than a male. Walsh-Haney has found that approximately 20% of forensic
anthropology casework has involved nonhuman remains. It is important to
differentiate between human and nonhuman remains. Common animals
found besides humans include pigs, deer, cows, and even dogs and birds.
The animals tend to show different trauma such as butcher marks or sharp
sutures that shouldnt be present in human remains. (Walsh-Haney, 2013).
In order to estimate age investigators will look at common changes
that are found as human bone ages. Effects of disease and other nutritional
effects help provide a broad range for the age at death. Investigators are
also able to use the length of bones, dental formations, and the shape of
pubic bones to help with estimating an age for the remains. (Walsh-Haney,
2013)
Analyzing trauma is very important in determining the cause of death.
Forensic Anthropologists use several methods to help deduce the cause of
death and examine different trauma on a skeleton. The trauma of a skeleton
are broken up into three different categories: antemortem trauma,
perimortem trauma, and postmortem trauma.

Antemortem trauma is any trauma that was experienced while the

subject was living. Traces left from diseases or fractures and injuries that
have healed over are common signs of antemortem trauma. (Walsh-Haney,
2013)
Perimortem trauma is where there has been no bone healing. This
usually means that the trauma experienced resulted in death or was
experienced at the time of death. Most perimortem injuries are caused by
bullets, blades, and bludgeons. Bullet wounds will usually leave marks that
are beveled in the direction that the bullet travelled, leaving behind both and
entrance and exit wound. Blades leave distinct notch-like marks on the bones
and bludgeons result in fractures that dont show signs of much resistance.
Strangulation will leave fractures around the thyroid cartilage. (Walsh-Haney,
2013).
Postmortem trauma is trauma that the remains have experienced after
the person has died. This usually infers taphonomic impacts as a result of
environment processes. Forensic taphonomy is actually a subfield of forensic
anthropology and examines how the taphonomic forces alter evidence
recovered during an investigation. There is both biotaphonomy and
geotaphonomy. Biotaphonomy is the most basic process and examines how
natural decomposition has effected the remains. Geotaphonomy studies how
someone has buried a body and how the body impacts the area around it.
Geological and botanical changes are included. Usually there will be
evidence of disturbance in the ground and tool marks. Footprints in the

bottoms of graves are sometimes found as well. Water and erosion patterns
as well as changes in the plant growth help infer information about the
remains. (Nawrocki, 1996).
A lot of these methods are still used by modern forensic
anthropologists but to a much more sophisticated and advanced extent. The
use of supercomputers allows remains to be analyzed by special software to
provide much more accurate estimations about the subject. One such
program is known as the Fordisc 3.0. Fordisc helps create a biological profile
of remains, even when there is only parts of the cranium found, by
comparing the evidence to different groups. Comparing the cranium to
these different groups determines things like the ancestry, sex, and age of
the remains. While Fordisc is not entirely accurate, it does help forensic
anthropologists come to conclusions much faster and with higher accuracy.
(Walsh-Haney, 2013).
Super computers also allow for faster and more accurate facial
reconstruction. Special 3-D modelling programs are used much in the same
way as traditional facial reconstruction. Depth markers are used to
determine the depth of facial tissue and then the face is modelled on top of
the cranium in accordance to the depth markers. These facial reconstructions
are heavily used in identifying remains.
To broadly express the current understandings of forensic anthropology
we can say that we are able to determine many basic things about skeletal

remains. Anthropologists can approximate age, sex, height, and race of a

skeleton and use this information to help identify the remains in a criminal
investigation. Estimated facial reconstructions provide a basis for
investigators to find a suspect as well. In most cases anthropologist
consultants will also determine the cause of death by looking at antemortem,
perimortem, and postmortem trauma. Currently we know that tooth
formation and length of bones help evaluate the age of a skeleton. While
DNA research is still a new field it has opened up many new doors for
forensic anthropologists. DNA testing of evidence recovered from crime
scenes helps link potential suspects to the crime. DNA testing is an
overwhelming breakthrough in the field and will lead to new and faster
methods to be used during criminal investigations. (Walsh-Haney, 2013)
Current questions about forensic anthropology dont necessarily
pertain to how we can identify remains. Current investigations are really
leading to discovering new methods that provide faster and more accurate
estimations about the information that we already know. DNA researched has
opened up an entirely new field of anthropology that will lead to many new
discoveries. How does DNA help us identify remains, both in a historical and
criminal context? We can now take DNA evidence from historical remains and
say Yeah, thats really who we say it is or No, that actually isnt who weve
been thinking it is. People will start questioning the validity of past
investigations and DNA evidence will bring closure to those questions, either
providing a suspect for investigation or revealing the true perpetrator. With

advancing forensic methods we can now also identify the bodies of people
still living through photographs and videos. Using this sort of evidence will
bring up questions of ethics and legality. How much freedom are we giving
up when investigators can freely gather this kind of evidence? Should the
police and FBI be allowed to have this kind of investigative power? Modern
forensic anthropology investigations have opened up to questions about
human rights and the implications of some of the methods being used.
The subfield of forensic anthropology began when investigators started
using professionally recognized anthropologists during criminal
investigations. Early murder investigations used anatomists to help identify
remains and the subfield evolved quickly after World War II when scientists
were used to identify thousands of remains. Forensic anthropology explores
the ideas and discoveries of other subfields and how that knowledge can be
applied to help solve criminal cases and historical mysteries. Forensic
anthropology helps us discover new information about the remains of our
ancestors and what caused them to die. We can see markings that are
caused by tools and even natural events and determine the types of
situations that are ancestors had experienced. We can study the effects of
the environment on human remains and even assist in archaeological
investigations. Forensic anthropology involves discovering the reasons for
death and being able to identify specific markers on skeletons that help in
that identification. We are able to apply what we learn to the major subfield
of biological anthropology by discovering how our ancestors have died and

the behavioral aspects that led to that death as well as identifying and
comparing human remains to that of our other ancestors.

Works Cited:
Ferguson, P., & Raitt, F. (2013). If a picture paints a thousand words : the
development of human identification techniques in forensic anthropology
and their implications for human rights in the criminal process. International
Journal of Evidence and Proof, 17(2), 127-156.
Handbook of Forensic Services. (1999). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of
Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Laboratory Division.
Nawrocki S (1996). An Outline of Forensic Taphonomy. University of
Indianapolis Archeology & Forensics Laboratory (http://archlab.uindy.edu).
Ubelaker, D.H. 2006. Introduction to Forensic Anthropology, in Forensic
Anthropology and Medicine. Edited by A. Schmitt, E. Cunha, J. Pinheiro, pp. 310. Humana Press Inc., Totowa, NJ
Walsh-Haney, H. A. (2013, October 20). Forensic Anthropology. Retrieved
March 8, 2016, from http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1900431overview#a1

Works Referenced:

Golda, S. D. (2010). A Look at the History of Forensic Anthropology: Tracing My

Academic Genealogy. JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY ANTHROPOLOGY, Volume
1(Issue 1), 33-47.

Jurmain, R., Kilgore, L., & Trevathan, W. (2012). Essentials of physical

anthropology (9th ed.). Cengage Learning.
Understanding DNA evidence: A guide for victim service providers. (2001).
Washington, D.C.: Dept. of Justice, National Commission on the Future of DNA
Evidence, National Institute of Justice.