Ancient forensics

Significance: Although ancient scientific techniques lacked the sophistication of modern forensic methods, individual examples of people applying science and technology to legal issues foreshadowed some of the basic concepts that forensic scientists recognized and developed centuries later.

The introduction of scientifically collected and examined evidence in legal proceedings is a relatively modern development. In ancient times, evidence presented in legal proceedings was generally limited to the oral arguments that prosecutors and defenders presented in courts. No concept of “forensic science” existed. Prosecutors and defenders relied primarily on words to convince officials and juries of the correctness of their cases. Most ancient legal personnel did not consider seeking such evidence as fibers, fingerprints, and hair or have techniques to evaluate them.

The levels to which the hard sciences were developed varied among different ancient civilizations. Scientists typically shaped their pursuits to please patrons and rulers. Many people associated science with superstitions and magic, especially with the ancient world’s fascination with the pseudoscience of alchemy, which sought to transform other elements into gold. Religious beliefs frequently influenced ancient science. Nevertheless, some people did pursue science for practical reasons, such as measuring land.

Before Forensic Science

The absence of standardized forensic science practices throughout the ancient world aided criminals in escaping punishment. Without the input of scientifically collected and examined evidence, criminal investigations typically relied on force to secure confessions from suspects. In court trials, the only evidence that was usually considered was the testimonies of witnesses and the arguments of prosecutors and defenders. In rare instances, descriptions of the symptoms displayed by victims of poisoning or the physical damage inflicted by assaults might be presented.

As scientific knowledge expanded, some people began applying common sense to evident connections between physical evidence and crimes. Some records of ancient legal proceedings include records of practices that resemble modern forensic techniques. However, many people were probably unaware of the scientific bases behind their methods. They tended to rely on common sense and practical approaches to solving problems related to problems they considered criminal or threatening. For example, a passage in the Bible’s book of Judges describes a technique foreshadowing modern voice identification. Jephthah insisted people say the word shibboleth so he could identify his allies and detect enemy Ephraimites who pronounced the word differently. Originating in this passage in the Bible, the ancient Hebrew word for stream, shibboleth, came to be used in English as a word or saying that might be used as a kind of password for a group while lacking any true meaning.

Forensic Foreshadowing

Some early forensic scientific methods were based on accidental discoveries, or epiphanies, achieved while pursuing solutions to other problems. For example, the third century b.c.e. Greek mathematician and inventor Archimedes was challenged to prove that a goldsmith had cheated King Hieron II of Syracuse by mixing inferior metals with the pure gold he had been given to make a crown for the king. Archimedes’ investigation was constrained by the requirement that he not damage the royal crown in any way. According to legend, while Archimedes was taking a bath, he noticed that his body displaced an amount of water equal to his own weight. Drawing on that observation, he submerged both King Hieron’s crown and an amount of gold equivalent to what the goldsmith was supposed to have used for the crown in water. When he determined that the crown displaced less water than the control sample, he proved that the goldsmith had committed fraud.

Poisons had a special fascination for ancient scientists. However, physicians had a difficult time proving that apparent victims of poisoning crimes were actually poisoned, as the symptoms of poisoning and natural seizures were similar. Their attempts to devise methods to prove victims had been poisoned were simplistic compared to later toxicology developments. Around 200 b.c.e., the Middle Eastern physician and poet Nicander of Colophon studied poisons and their antidotes and wrote two books on the subject. Alexipharmaca describes many types of poisonings by animals, plants, and inanimate agents and suggests antidotes and other treatments. Theriaca deals more narrowly with poisonings caused by animal bites, stings, and scratches. Nicander had a strong reputation during his time, but his books were not published in print until 1499, when a joint edition appeared in Venice.

The modern forensic science of odontology, which is used to identify bodies of victims by their teeth, has at least one ancient precursor. In 49 c.e., the Roman emperor Nero’s mother, Agrippina, sent for the head of her enemy Lollia Paulina after the woman reportedly committed suicide so that Agrippina could verify her death. The dead woman’s face was distorted beyond easy recognition, but when Agrippina looked at the teeth in the head, she recognized a distinctively colored front tooth that she had previously noticed in Lollia Paulina’s mouth.

Detecting Fraud

Documents were frequently forged in ancient times, when most people were illiterate, so government officials sought effective methods to detect fraudulent wills, deeds, and contracts. In ancient Rome, legal officials used people considered to be experts in handwriting analysis to evaluate documents by comparing writing styles of known and suspect scribes.

Seeking ways to detect lies, some ancients created primitive polygraph techniques. In contrast to modern polygraphs, which measure physiological responses, the techniques of the ancients were based solely on observations of the suspects’ behavior, even though psychology was not yet an established scientific field. For example, around 500 b.c.e., priests in India tested people accused of thievery by placing them in darkened tents with donkeys whose tails were coated in soot. The priests would tell the suspected thieves to tug the animals’ tails because the donkeys would bray when touched by thieves. Suspects who left the tents with their hands unsoiled by soot were considered guilty. Ancient Arabs conducted similar tests using grease instead of soot on the animals’ tails.

Ancient Chinese officials devised a different kind of lie-detecting test. They placed dried rice in the mouths of criminal suspects, whom they told to spit out the grains. Suspects with rice still sticking on their tongues were exposed as liars. This test actually had some scientific validity, as human bodies often respond to stress by being unable to produce the saliva necessary to spit. Because guilty suspects were more likely than the innocent to feel stress, they were less likely to be able to spit the rice out of their mouths.

Prints

Throughout human history, every individual person has had fingerprints, palm prints, and footprints that are unique. These prints have always offered the potential for identifying criminal suspects but had to wait for a time when their forensic value was understood. The ancients were aware that the lines on their palms and fingertips formed distinct patterns and may have even recognized that those patterns were unique. However, they did not comprehend how prints left on objects could be used to identify criminal who touched things such as murder weapons and stolen items. They used fingerprints primarily to identify objects and documents, not for criminal investigations. Various hand and fingerprints were used for signatures that were recognized in courts and business dealings. In Babylonia, for example, fingerprints were used to mark tablets related to business activities at least as early as 2000 b.c.e. In East Asia, ancient Chinese and Japanese officials and traders used thumbprints to distinguish legal seals and documents, and handprints were often used to sign divorce documents.

A court case in which print evidence did prove significant occurred in Rome during the first century c.e., when a Roman attorney named Quintilian defended a man accused of killing his mother. A talented speaker, Quintilian combined his oratorical skills with some scientific knowledge to build his legal strategy. He showed that a bloody palm print that had dried at the site of the murder was not compatible in size with the hand of his client. He went on to argue that the print had been placed at the crime scene by someone who wished to frame the murdered woman’s son. Thanks to his comparison of handprints, he won his client’s acquittal; however, the true murderer was never identified.

Medical Evidence

Many ancient rulers and physicians recognized the importance of medical knowledge to legal systems. The eighteenth century b.c.e. Babylonian king Hammurabi included laws relevant to medicine in the famous law code that he formulated. The early fourth century b.c.e. Greek physician Hippocrates recommended that medical practitioners learn how to recognize injuries and poisonings inflicted by criminal assailants.

Ancient physicians were often involved in investigations of crimes because of their specialized knowledge and their connections with rulers and officials. Medical autopsies go back at least as far as the early third millennium b.c.e. As in modern times, they were performed to determine causes of deaths. However, members of many ancient societies opposed invasive examinations of dead people because they believed that bodies had to be intact for their transition to the afterlife.

The word “autopsy” itself comes from ancient Greek, in which it means seeing with one’s own eyes, even though the ancient Greeks seldom performed autopsies. During the third century b.c.e., the Greek physicians Erasistratus and Herophilus of Chalcedon performed autopsies in Alexandria, Egypt, and may have explored how evidence of poisoning and injuries were linked to crimes.

Perhaps the most notable autopsy in ancient history was that of the Roman ruler Julius Caesar, who was stabbed to death by assassins on March 15, 44 b.c.e., at the Forum of Rome. The physician who afterward examined Caesar’s body reported to Roman officials that the second stab wound Caesar received was the fatal one. The word “forensic” comes from the Latin word forum. Some historians believe that the connection between the two words goes back to the autopsy performed after Caesar was killed at the Roman Forum.

Bibliography

Evans, Colin. Murder Two: The Second Casebook of Forensic Detection. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2004. Discusses ancient efforts to detect liars, identify corpses, and determine cause of death through methods with scientific elements.

Gagarin, Michael. Antiphon the Athenian: Oratory, Law, and Justice in the Age of the Sophists. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2002. Provides examples of the forensic speeches, not scientific evidence, that ancient Greeks used strategically to win in court.

Ramsland, Katherine. Beating the Devil’s Game: A History of Forensic Science and Criminal Investigation. New York: Berkley Books, 2007. Discusses several significant uses of science in ancient Greek and Roman legal settings.

Ricciuti, Edward. Science 101: Forensics. New York: HarperCollins, 2007. Illustrations and text highlight early forensic precursors by ancient peoples, placing those achievements in context with later developments.

Riggsby, Andrew M. Crime and Community in Ciceronian Rome. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1999. Describes court procedures and verdict options for various ancient crimes. Explains that oratory was the primary evidence utilized.