Forensic Anthropology

Max M. Houck

• Publisher: Academic Press
• Year: 2016
• Print ISBN: 9780128022146
• eBook ISBN: 9780128025239
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Forensic Science
• Index: Social Sciences

Forensic Anthropology serves as a graduate level text for those studying and teaching forensic anthropology, as well as an excellent reference for forensic anthropologist libraries or for use in casework. Covers taphonomy, recovery and analysis, identification, statistical interpretation, and professional issues. Edited by a world-renowned leading forensic expert, the Advanced Forensic Science Series grew out of the recommendations from the 2009 NAS Report, Strengthening Forensic Science: A Path Forward, and is a long overdue solution for the forensic science community. - Provides the basic principles of forensic science and an overview of forensic anthropology - Contains sections on taphonomy, recovery, analysis, pathology, and identification - Covers statistical interpretation of evidence using the classical-frequentist approach and Bayesian analysis, measurement uncertainty, and standard methods - Includes a section on professional issues, such as: from crime scene to court, expert witness testimony, and health and safety - Incorporates effective pedagogy, key terms, review questions, discussion questions, and additional reading suggestions

Section 1

Overview

Outline

Forensic Anthropology: An Introduction

History of Forensic Anthropology

Principles of Forensic Science

Transfer

Interpretation/The Comparative Method

Forensic Classification of Evidence

Key Terms

Review Questions

Discussion Questions

Forensic Anthropology

An Introduction

C. Cattaneo Università degli Studi di Milano, Milano, Italy

Abstract

This chapter serves as a brief introduction to forensic anthropology (FA), its main scenarios, and new developments. FA is presented as a branch of physical anthropology, with specific applications at the scene of crime, for determining time since death, identification, and trauma. Finally, the relatively new role of the forensic anthropologist in the domain of identification of the living is described as well as the struggle to devise methods for identifying faces (e.g., in the case of crimes registered by video surveillance systems), aging living individuals, or juveniles represented in pedopornographic material.

Keywords

Forensic anthropology; Identification; Osteology; Trauma analysis

Today the adjective “forensic” seems to be applicable to almost any discipline. So in the past decades, the evolution of “saprophytic” disciplines (feeding on original ones such as pathology, entomology, botany, archeology, and many others) into forensic ones, that is, forensic pathology, forensic entomology, and so on has been seen. The same is true for anthropology, a very vast domain. Because it studies humans also in the context of culture and behavior, anthropology is sometimes classed as a social science. Traditionally, it has two main branches (according to some academic schools even more), which can be identified as cultural and physical anthropology: the first is related to the more social and artistic realms of man, whereas the second to the more physical ones. According to the American Association of Physical Anthropology, this discipline is defined as a biological science that deals with the adaptations, variability, and evolution of human beings and their living and fossil relatives. Physical anthropology is therefore the anthropology that has been adopted by forensics at the moment: but one can expect that in the future, many aspects of cultural anthropology may merge with criminal anthropology, and perhaps even criminology.

Forensic anthropology (FA) has been defined as the application of physical anthropology, generally intended as human osteology, to the forensic scenario. The following paragraphs therefore refer to what is traditionally known as FA and the new developing fields.

Before discussing what anthropologists do in the forensic scenario, it is worthwhile to spend a few words on who the anthropologist is. Certainly, the anthropologist is not superimposable to the pathologist. Even in cases of skeletal remains, a pathologist must always be involved as he or she is the only specialist (technically and bureaucratically) who can diagnose and certify the cause of death. Nonetheless, forensic pathologists usually have very little training in osteology and anthropology; therefore, the anthropologist is a fundamental figure for extrapolating from human remains information, which is written in the skeleton and needs specialized training to be deciphered appropriately (this goes beyond standard medical forensic training); for example, establishing age from the pubic symphysis or distinguishing a perimortem from a postmortem fracture. For what concerns training and certification, this is an even more difficult issue, as for many disciplines of the forensic realm. Some countries, such as the United States, have certified boards with specific prerequisites (an examination, a master's course, a PhD, and casework), others (most European countries) have none and FA is dealt with by both pathologists and physical anthropologists. Some countries have postgraduate training in FA (e.g., UK, Italy, and the United States) and, again, some do not. Therefore, depending on the country or even on the single situation, one may encounter different training—if at all—of the forensic anthropologist. Risks are that physical anthropologists with no experience in forensics will take on cases and that pathologists with no experience in osteology will deal with bones. Furthermore, the lack of certification or of some sort of “control” over who can actually practice this “profession” opens the field to many self-made men with inappropriate training. This, however, is a problem frequently occurring in other disciplines adopted by the forensic world, such as botany, geology, entomology, and so on.

Going back to the more technical discussion on FA, one can say that in the traditional scenario, the anthropologist comes in when “extreme” states of decomposition of the body are present (skeletonization and severe charring) and bone and teeth become the only tissues available (although this discipline can be useful also in cases of extremely putrefied cadavers where soft tissues are no longer informative and the study of the underlying calcified tissues may yield more information).

Though physical anthropology has always included the study of man and his diversity in toto, even with respect to skin pigmentation or blood type, for example, the forensic version has adopted the subsections closest to archeology, in other words, everything that implies the study of human skeletal remains. The discipline of anthropology, therefore, begins “on site,” following the closest archeological tradition. Forensic archeology is a very close cousin, according to some subsection of FA, and contemplates the application of archeology to the forensic context for the search and proper recovery of human remains. The forensic anthropologist therefore usually has some competence in recovering human skeletal remains underground or on the surface.

Before studying the human remains themselves, these in fact have to be properly recovered and sometimes even need to be found. Mostly, searching for human remains is the scenario of the forensic archeologist: he or she must have the proper experience to know how to look for a criminal burial site—and know whether to use aerial photography, geophysics, or other means. When the remains, in particular, skeletal remains, are found, the scene of crime team should include an anthropologist who has appropriate training for recognizing and recovering bones, verifying if any are missing, and so on. Another example of the role of the anthropologist at the scene of crime is in the case of burnt and charred human remains, when all that is left of the entire body are small fragments of bone. In these cases, meticulous sieving through the remains (in a burnt car, for example) performed on behalf of an expert in osteology may help retrieve much more osseous material, and therefore, more information concerning identity, cause of death, and other precious data: it should always be kept in mind that in fact, in the case of human remains, the only lesion present may be on the smallest bone of the hand, such as a phalanx, and that it is therefore crucial to recover every single piece of bone.

Before dealing with the actual study of the bones as one or more individuals, in skeletonized cases, anthropology is the discipline with the tools for verifying whether a bunch of bones are of forensic interest, that is, if they are human, and, if so, recent. According to the morphological study of such remains (and at times histological), the anthropologist will verify whether the bones are human. Human bones, when intact, are generally distinguishable from nonhuman ones due to their specific morphology. However, in the case of small fragments or very degraded pieces of bone, shape and size are frequently of little help. DNA tests can of course be performed but quicker and less costly methods exist in anthropology which can easily lead to a diagnosis of human versus nonhuman. Once the anthropologist has decided for a human origin, another preliminary task to the actual study of human remains must be to verify whether they are ancient or recent and what the postmortem interval is. If such a diagnosis is relatively simple when soft tissues are still present, even though decomposed, through the study of the level of degradation (e.g., Accumulated Degree Days) or through entomological analyses, everything becomes more complicated with complete skeletonization. A clean skeleton may be 5, 10, or 100 years old and look the same—at times only sophisticated chemical tests can do the job when no macroscopic or microscopic method will give a reliable time since death estimation. Anthropologists have in fact recently become more and more acquainted with radiocarbon and other isotope tests and with the many laboratories across the United States and Europe who actually perform them.

The most traditional task of the anthropologist or osteologist is, however, what comes next—building the biological profile. For centuries, anthropologists (previously with calipers, nowadays also with more complex technology) have been experts at detecting and describing human diversity on bone, and therefore, at sexing, aging, determining ancestry, stature, and to a certain extent, pathology of the skeleton. Thus, the “identikit” of the skeleton of a victim will be built on the basis of bone morphology and metrics. In the end, a face can even be suggested if the anthropologist goes as far as performing what is known as facial reconstruction or approximation. This is a technique by which according to specific anatomical landmarks, soft tissues are applied step-by-step onto the cranium (or a cast) to provide a face, which may look like the person when he or she was alive. At this point, the anthropologist has set the basis for id...

Table of contents

• Cover image
• Title page
• Table of Contents
• Published and Forthcoming Titles in the Advanced Forensic Science Series
• Copyright
• Senior Editor: Biography
• List of Contributors
• Foreword
• Preface
• Section 1. Overview
• Section 2. Taphonomy
• Section 3. Recovery
• Section 4. Analysis
• Section 5. Pathology
• Section 6. Identification
• Section 7. Statistics and Interpretation
• Section 8. Professional Topics
• Index