1 Definition, Aim and Scope of Forensic Anthropology

Vijeta

The text is divided into four different parts that includes:

Introduction
Historical Development of Forensic Anthropology
Definition of Forensic Anthropology
Scope of Forensic Anthropology

Learning Objectives:

Through this text, one will be able to know about forensic anthropology, a specialized, applied branch of physical/biological anthropology which deals with the medico-legal investigation.
How it has been developed a sub-discipline of biological anthropology through historical dimension is also stated in this text. Further, definitions of forensic anthropology by different authors have been given for scientific understanding of forensic anthropology.
The provided text explains scope of forensic anthropologist as well as work of forensic anthropologists how they are helpful for the court of law or law enforcement agencies.

1. Introduction

Human beings have always been curious about its surrounding, fellow creatures, cosmology and no less about its own existence. This curiosity of man takes him to the roots of history, the cobwebs of polities, biology and plethora of other field of study. However, anthropology is an amalgamation rather says a beautiful patchwork of many branches of science and humanities. Anthropology answers the questions of human’s past and present, and these answers are not based upon the free spirited human imaginations, rather those findings are the resultant facts of undaunted labor and intellect. Anthropology builds a knowledge base which has different dimensions encompassing a plethora of subjects and streams. It not has theoretical aspects but also applies it knowledge base in solution of societal problems. Simply put, it is study of human being with time and space. Anthropology is a subject divided into following branches-

Physical / Biological anthropology
Social / cultural anthropology
Archaeology
Linguistic Anthropology

Physical/biological anthropology sees the physical development of human being. Biological /physical anthropology deals with different processes of the human environment and the way human has been dealing with it ever since the advent of life forms. It deeply studies how human lives are affected by the outer environment and social milieu. It studies the human evolution with various stages, the factors affecting that process, the detriments i.e. disease and so on, and very practically subsequently the cause and remedial measures of those detriments are also the part of the study of physical anthropology. Thus physical anthropology has more cutting edge level perspectives and utility in everyday life also.

Society has many components live human, culture, resources, etc. Human being is a social animal and there is a fusion process. It means human beings on affected by society and in return in affects on it. There are political society i.e. country or state & Natural society i.e. family. These societies are also intertwined.

Archaeology is the expression and capability of human to create to build. It is creativity and it is through process at a given point of time. It has a temporal process at a given point of time. It has a temporal dimension too. Bio-archaeology adopts a population-oriented approach and typically involves the examination of human remains and artifacts from an entire historic or prehistoric cemetery.

Language is the medium of expression. Through words we connect to each other, language has the symbols which carry our expression. In Hindu mythology, “The Word” is given utmost importance as Upanishads ray “Shabdoeyambhram”. It is equivalent to God – So, language is one of the most vital components of our culture, society and to the very existence of human beings. Thus, Linguistic anthropology amalgamate anthropology including it all branch i. e. biological, socio-cultural and archeological anthropology.

When a human body is discovered, the primary objectives in an investigation are to identify the victim and to establish the cause and manner of death. If the remains are found relatively soon after death, these goals are usually accomplished by the law enforcement agency and the forensic pathologist performing the autopsy. When the remains are not discovered until sometime after death, however, the expertise of a forensic anthropologist is often needed. In cases involving skeletal remains, it is the forensic anthropologist who can best establish a profile of age, ancestry, sex, and stature and provide an assessment of trauma (Gretchen and Ubelaker, 2001).

Thus, Forensic anthropology is the sub-branch of biological anthropology which uses the anthropological knowledge and application for medico-legal process. Forensic anthropology encompasses the field recovery of partly or completely skeletonised remains and their laboratory management and analysis. It involves the determination of whether the skeletal remains are of animal or human origin; the number of individuals represented; the race, sex, age and stature of the individuals concerned; the pathology, injuries and anomalies that are present; the identification of unique individual characteristics; the estimation of the time since death and manner and cause of death; and the investigation of the individual’s identity by matching of post-mortem skeletal evidence with ante-mortem records or portraits (Wood et al,2002). Forensic anthropology forms an integral component of an investigative team in the field, laboratory, and courtroom. For example, during the identification process, forensic anthropologists may work with police investigators, crime scene technicians, forensic pathologists, odontologists (dentists), molecular geneticists, radiologists, and fingerprint experts. New members are added to the team if a case goes to trial, including the attorneys and a variable number of additional forensic specialists, such as ballistics experts, trace evidence examiners, and document examiners, each of whom testifies as to his or her scientific or technical findings (Steadman, 2008). Forensic Anthropologist is helpful for the Court of Law as follows:

Human or not
Race
Individual Identification
Minimum number of individuals
Age Determination
Sex Determination
Number of Individuals
Disease Processes

2. Historical Development of Forensic Anthropology

Thompson (1982) distinguished three periods in the development of forensic anthropology: pre-1939, 1939-1972, and post-1972. Forensic anthropology has its roots principally in the anatomical sciences. Before 1939, anatomy departments were the principal contributors to the methodology of human skeletal variation, using collections of cadavers of known age, ancestry, sex, and morbidity. Undoubtedly, at this time, physical anthropologists and anatomists were consulted by law enforcement agencies regarding skeletal remains. Thomas Dwight (1843-1911) of Harvard University, H.H. Wilder (1864-1928) of Smith College in Massachusetts of the Field Columbian Museum in Chicago were among those anthropologists interested in the forensic aspects of anthropology (Stewart, 1979). During this same period, Earnest Hooton (1887-1954) of Harvard University and Ales Hrdlicka (1869-1943) expressed interest in the field. Among the contributions made by Hrdlicka was his key role in the founding of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists in 1930 and the American Journal of Physical Anthropology in 1918. Hrdlicka also consulted with law enforcement agencies, including the FBI, on a number of skeletal cases (Ubelaker, 1999a, 1999b). Hooton later publish “Medico-legal Aspects of Physical Anthropology” in Clinics, in which he described the dim prospect of new methods in the field of physical anthropology in a forensic context, undoubtedly because of the lack of attention given to the field (Hooton, 1943). In 1939, W.M. Krogman published “A Guide to the Identification of Human Skeletal Material” in the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, marking the beginning of the second period of forensic anthropology development. This publication represented the first major contribution by a trained anthropologist on the topic of human skeletal identification for medico-legal purposes. Krogman’s publication allowed the forensic community, as well as other physical anthropologists, to view physical anthropology in a forensic context (Stewart, 1979). At the close of World War II, several physical anthropologists were consulted in the identification of war casualties. Among the anthropologists who contributed their expertise were H.L. Shapiro of the American Museum of Natural History in New York, F.E. Randall of the U.S. Army’s Office of the Quartermaster General, and Charles Snow of the University of Kentucky. Krogman’s “Guide” became a manual used by the anthropologists in the identification process. A central laboratory was established for this purpose in 1947 in Hawaii and was headed by Charles Snow (Gretchen and Ubelaker, 2001). Not long before, in the early 1940s, T.D. Stewart began his routine consultation with the FBI for forensic skeletal cases (Ubelaker, 1990). This relationship, initiated by Hrdlicka, represented an early phase of a long history of collaboration between the FBI and the Smithsonian.

In 1962, Krogman wrote the first textbook on forensic anthropology, “The Human Skeleton in Forensic Medicine” (revised and updated: Krogman and Iscan, 1986), is a compilation of techniques and case histories of the identification of human remains. In the text, Krogman identified methods for the determination of age, ancestry, sex, and stature, as well as individualizing characteristics and restoration of facial features on the skull. A turning point for forensic anthropology came in 1972 when American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS) instituted the Physical Anthropology section. Section was the increase in the number of textbooks on forensic anthropology. In 1979, Stewart published Essentials of Forensic Anthropology. This textbook was the first to include a chapter on courtroom procedures associated with expert testimony. The post-1972 era marked an emergence of material written by anthropologists for other anthropologists and, equally as important, for other scientists and law enforcement personnel. Current literature in forensic anthropology encompasses a wide range of topics and issues. Anthropologists are no longer limited to research involving the estimation of age, ancestry, sex, and stature, as was prominent during the emergence of the field. Although a large amount of research is still being conducted on improving and testing these techniques, the anthropologist’s scope has reached far beyond them (Galloway et al., 1993). Hrdlicka was a pioneer in American physical anthropology and played a key role in founding the American Association of Physical Anthropologists and its journal, the American Journal of Physical Anthropology. Although Hrdlicka is best known for his study of the peopling of the new world and anthropometry, his research interests and activities were broad and included forensic topics. Hrdlicka’s training included legal medicine, and his early work focused on forensic issues regarding the biological basis for abnormal behavior. At the Smithsonian’s Department of Anthropology, he became involved in legal issues relating to American Indian ancestry and skeletal analysis. Perhaps as early as 1918, the FBI became aware of Hrdlicka’s expertise, and at least by 1936, the FBI began to send specimens to Hrdlicka for identification (Ubelaker, 1999a).

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. Sue’s measurements reached a wider audience through publication by Mathieu-Joseph-Bonaventure Orfila in two medico-legal textbooks in the early 19th century. Orfila (1831) supplemented Sue’s measurements with his own, and for many years, the two databases comprised the sources used by the medico-legal community to evaluate stature from incomplete remains.

3. Definition of Forensic Anthropology

Forensic anthropology encompasses the field recovery of partly or completely skeletonized remains and their laboratory management and analysis. It involves the determination of whether the skeletal remains are of animal or human origin; the number of individuals represented; the race, sex, age and stature of the individuals concerned; the pathology, injuries and anomalies that are present; the identification of unique individual characteristics; the estimation of the time since death and manner and cause of death; and the investigation of the individual’s identity by matching of post-mortem skeletal evidence with ante-mortem records or portraits.

In 1939 W.M. Krogman published ‘A Guide to the Identification of Human Skeletal Material’ and the “Human Skeleton in Forensic Medicine (1962). This published work was used by other anthropologist for development of forensic anthropological methods.

Krogman’s guide was followed by T.D. Stewarts 1979 book ‘The Essentials of Forensic Anthropology: Especially as Developed in the United States’, and then in 1986 Krogman and M.Y. Iscan defined the ‘big four’ in forensic anthropology for identification of skeletal remains in criminal investigations: age, sex, race, and stature. This provided the foundation, from which Forensic Anthropology has developed, and since then numerous texts and articles have been published, and research occurs around the world.

Snow (1973) offered a somewhat broader definition of forensic anthropology to include applications to “problems of medical jurisprudence.”

In 1976, T. D. Stewart 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”.

Forensic anthropology represents the application of knowledge and techniques of physical anthropology to problems of medico-legal 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 (Ubelaker, 1996).

Forensic anthropology is defined as the application of anthropological and skeletal biological principles to medico-legal issues. The term medico-legal refers to the capability of medical science to shed light on legal matters, such as the identity of the deceased and the circumstances of death (Fisher 2003).

The American Board of Forensic Anthropology provides the following definition and additional clarifying information on forensic anthropology:

Forensic anthropology is the application of the science of physical or biological anthropology to the legal process. Physical or biological anthropologists who specialize in forensics primarily focus their studies on the human skeleton.

4. Scope of Forensic Anthropology

Forensic anthropologists do analysis of skeletal, badly decomposed, or otherwise unidentified human remains is important in both legal and humanitarian contexts.
Forensic anthropologists apply standard scientific techniques developed in physical anthropology to analyse human remains, and to aid in the detection of crime.
In addition to assisting in locating and recovering human skeletal remains, forensic anthropologists work to assess the age, sex, ancestry, stature, and unique features of a decedent from the skeleton.
Forensic anthropologists frequently work in conjunction with forensic pathologists, odontologists, and homicide investigators to identify a decedent, document trauma to the skeleton, and/or estimate the post-mortem interval (ABFA 2008:1).

Forensic Anthropologists are helpful for the investigation of crime /crime scene because of their training in cultural anthropology, archaeology, taphonomy and biological anthropology. Their training in cultural anthropology allows them to identify cultural markers that define ethnic, religious or national groups. Their training in anthropology, archaeology and taphonomy gives them the skills needed to excavate clandestine graves and crime scenes where any incident occurred (Byers 2005). In particular, taphonomy, or “the interpretation of all events affecting the remains between death and discovery represents the most important contributions made by anthropologists (Ubelaker 1997:80). Their training in biological anthropology gives them the skills needed to analyze skeletal remains and the associated material needed to prove genocide (Byers 2005).

When examining the surreptitious graves and remains of murder victims, the forensic anthropologist help in solving the problem as follows:

First, determine various demographic attributes of the victim such as ancestry or ethnic group, sex, age, and stature of the individual.
Second, collect evidence of traumatic injury to determine the nature and cause of the trauma to assist in the determination of the manner of death.
Third, based on knowledge of decomposition and deterioration of human remains after death, estimate the time that passed since the individual died, or the post-mortem interval (PMI).
Fourth, assist in the location of remains buried or left on the surface of the ground in a way that allows the collection of all relevant evidence needed for the forensic investigation.
Fifth, using knowledge of skeletal features, forensic anthropologists can provide information unique to each individual to obtain a positive identification (Byers 2005; Cattaneo 2007).
Additionally, the practice of forensic anthropology can be seen as a clinical practice because it employs both clinical and actuarial judgment. Clinical judgment requires the practitioner to process information learned from both academic training and hands-on or clinical analysis of human remains. In contrast, actuarial judgment requires interpretations based on calculations using empirically established formulas (Klepinger, 2006).

Conclusion: Forensic Anthropologists play an important role in establishing the cause of death in an investigation. These individuals work together in order to draw conclusions from evidence, primarily by applying their knowledge of the human skeleton to a case or subject at hand. The main focus of a Forensic Anthropologist is to process the crime scene, examine and process remains, create a biological profile, provide appropriate documentation of their findings, and testify in the court of law (Stanojevich, 2012). Their knowledge of the human body contributes to the outcome of a death investigation by providing law enforcement agencies with expert answers and conclusions, which ultimately aids in the outcome of any given case.

Summary: Human being has always been curious about its surrounding, fellow creatures, cosmology and no less about its own existence. This curiosity of man takes him to the roots of history, the cobwebs of polities, biology and plethora of other field of study. However, anthropology is an amalgamation rather says a beautiful patchwork of many branches of science and humanities. Thus, Forensic anthropology is the sub-branch of biological anthropology which uses the anthropological knowledge and application for medico-legal process. Forensic anthropology encompasses the field recovery of partly or completely skeletonised remains and their laboratory management and analysis. It involves the determination of whether the skeletal remains are of animal or human origin; the number of individuals represented; the race, sex, age and stature of the individuals concerned; the pathology, injuries and anomalies that are present; the identification of unique individual characteristics; the estimation of the time since death and manner and cause of death; and the investigation of the individual’s identity by matching of post-mortem skeletal evidence with ante-mortem records or portraits (Wood et al,2002). Forensic Anthropologists are helpful for the investigation of crime /crime scene because of their training in cultural anthropology, archaeology, taphonomy and biological anthropology. Their training in cultural anthropology allows them to identify cultural markers that define ethnic, religious or national groups. Their training in anthropology, archaeology and taphonomy gives them the skills needed to excavate clandestine graves and crime scenes where any incident occurred (Byers 2005). The main focus of a Forensic Anthropologist is to process the crime scene, examine and process remains, create a biological profile, provide appropriate documentation of their findings, and testify in the court of law (Stanojevich, 2012). Their knowledge of the human body contributes to the outcome of a death investigation by providing law enforcement agencies with expert answers and conclusions, which ultimately aids in the outcome of any given case.

References

ABFA, American Board of Forensic Anthropology American Board of Forensic Anthropology
Byers, Steven N. (2005): Introduction to Forensic Anthropology: A Textbook. Second ed. Boston: Pearson.
Cattaneo, Cristina. (2007): Forensic Anthropology: Developments of a Classical Discipline in the New Millennium. Forensic Science International 165:185-93.
Dwight, T. (1894): Methods of estimating the height from parts of the skeleton Med. Rec. N.Y. Vol.46: 293-296
Fisher, J. A. (2003): Techniques of Crime Scene Investigation. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Gretchen A. G. and Douglas, H. Ubelaker (2001): An Analysis of Forensic Anthropology Cases Submitted to the Smithsonian Institution by the Federal Bureau of Investigation from 1962 to 1994. Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology, Vol. 45
Hooton, Earnest A (1943): Medico-Legal Aspects of Physical Anthropology. Clinics, 1:1612- 1624
Hrdlicka, A. (2005): Shovel-shaped teeth. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. Vol. 3(4):429–465
Iscan, M.Y. (1988): Rise of forensic anthropology, Year Book. Phys. Anthropol. (31): 203–230.
Klepinger, Linda L. 2006. Fundamentals of Forensic Anthropology. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons,
Krogman, W.M. Iscan, M.Y. (1962): The Human Skeleton in Forensic Medicine, Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, IL.
McKern, Thomas, and T. Dale Stewart. (1957): Skeletal Age Changes in Young American Males. Technical Report EP-45, Natick, MA: U.S. Army Quartermaster Research and Development Center, Environmental Protection Research Division.
Orfila, M. J. B. Leáons de Médicine Légale, 2 vols. [In French.] BéchetJeune, Paris, 1821– 1823.
Orfila, M. J. B., Lesueur, O. Traité des exhumations juridiques, et considérationssurles changements physiques que les cadavreséprouvent en se pourrissantdanslaterre, dansl’eau, dans les fosses d’aisance et dansle fumier, 2 vols. [In French.] BéchetJeune, Paris, 1831.
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. 4–17, 1973.
Stanojevich V. (2012): The Role of a Forensic Anthropologist in a Death Investigation. J Forensic Res 3:154.
Steadman, D. W. (2008): Hard Evidence: Case Studies in Forensic Anthropology, 2nd Edition. Pearson Publisher: ISBN-13: 978-0-13-605073-5 and ISBN-10: 0-13-605073-5
Stewart, T. D., Essentials of Forensic Anthropology: Especially as Developed in the United States. Charles C. Thomas Publisher,Springfield, IL, 1979.
Stewart, T.D. (1948): Medico-legal aspects of the skeleton, Sex, age, race & Stature. Am. J. Phy. Anthropol. Vol. (6):315-322.
Stewart, T.D. (1979): Essentials of Forensic anthropology- especially as developed in the United States. Springfield, Thomas.
Sue, J.-J.Sur les proportions des squelette de homme, examinédepuisl’âge de plus tendre, jusqu’ B celui de vingtcinq, soixanteans, &audel [in French].Acad. Sci.Paris MemMathemat. Phys. Present. Divers Savants 2:572–585, 1755.
Thompson David D (1982): Forensic Anthropology. In Frank Spencer Editor. A History of American Physical Anthropology.1930-1980. pp. 357-369 New-York Academic Press.
Ubelaker, D. H. Skeletons Testify: Anthropology in Forensic Science, AAPA Luncheon Address: April 12, 1996. Year book Phys. Anthropol. 39:229–244, 1996.
What is Forensic Anthropology? American Board of Forensic Anthropology, 2008 [cited November 1, 2010]. Available from http://www.theabfa.org/index.html
Wood, W., Briggs, C., & Donlon, D.(2002): Forensic Osteology. Expert evidence, 3.

Suggested Readings

Bertillon, A. (1885): Identification Anthropometrique. Melun: 65.
James, S.H. and Nordby, J.J.(2009): Forensic Anthropology. Forensic Science: An Introduction to Scientific and Investigative Techniques. (3rd Edn), CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fla. 101-135
Klepinger, Linda L. 2006. Fundamentals of Forensic Anthropology. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
Krogman, W.M. Iscan, M.Y. (1962): The Human Skeleton in Forensic Medicine, Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, IL.
Modi N.J. 1977: Modi’s textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology. 20th Ed. Tripathi Pvt. Ltd., Bombay.
Thompson David D (1982): Forensic Anthropology. In Frank Spencer Editor. A History of American Physical Anthropology.1930-1980. pp. 357-369 New-York Academic Press