Ressources numériques en sciences humaines et sociales OpenEdition Nos plateformes OpenEdition Books OpenEdition Journals Hypothèses Calenda Bibliothèques OpenEdition Freemium Suivez-nous

Interview with Dr. Alexa Stiller: The History and Challenges of Forensic Anthropology

Linda Ratschiller, February 2026

Forensic anthropology has become a key field in uncovering mass violence, identifying victims, and supporting both justice and reconciliation. But as Dr. Alexa Stiller from the University of Zurich shows the discipline has a complex and sometimes troubling history.[1] We spoke about the evolution of forensic anthropology, its links with human rights activism, and how the field grapples with its colonial and scientific legacies.

Alexa Stiller Photo credits: Veikko Somerpuro

Dear Alexa, thank you for agreeing to give us this interview! In your latest paper you quote forensic anthropologists who describe their work with human remains as “talking with dead people” and “talking for dead people”. What does this self-image of forensic anthropologists reveal about their dual role?

“Talking to the Dead” refers to the analysis of bones. Forensic anthropology emerged as a discipline in the US in the 1970s. However, since the 1930s, the FBI had already been calling in physical anthropologists from the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, DC as experts in cases involving skeletal remains found in connection with crimes. Their task was to determine the age, sex, and “race” of the skeleton to identify the victim of the crime. At the same time, physical anthropologists worked alongside pathologists to determine the cause and manner of death.

“Talking for the Dead”, in turn, implies taking on a representative role. Since the 1980s, forensic anthropologists have seen themselves as advocates for crime victims, especially in cases of human rights violations and genocide.

Scholars have described a “forensic turn” for the human rights movement in the 1980s – that is a shift toward forensic methods and evidence as tools for investigating violence, memory and justice. You, in turn, identify a “human rights turn” in the field of forensic anthropology in the 1980s. What do you mean by that and what do you see as the key factors that triggered this shift?

This double turn took place in Argentina. After the dictatorship ended in 1983, the newly elected President Raúl Alfonsín formed an investigative commission to look into the fate of the thousands of disappeared persons. Forensic anthropologists from the US were called in to search for and identify human remains. Among them was Clyde Snow, who went on to train a group of Argentine students in forensic anthropology methods and practices. In 1985, these students founded the non-governmental organization Equipo Argentino de Antropología Forense (EAAF).

Clyde Snow and his students in forensic anthropology in Argentina in 1985. See: http://www.archivoinfojus.gob.ar/nacionales/30-anos-del-eaaf-clyde-snow-el-maestro-que-enseno-a-leer-los-huesos-4716.html

The EAAF uses forensic anthropological investigations to shed light on the whereabouts of the disappeared, document crimes, and secure evidence of serious human rights violations and mass violence. The organization’s goals were to alleviate the suffering of the families of the disappeared by enabling them to give their murdered loved ones a proper burial, facilitate coming to terms with the past and reconciliation within society, and bring the perpetrators to justice. The EAAF has collaborated with other human rights organizations, trained forensic human rights teams in other Latin American countries, and participated in exhumations around the world. This development represents the so-called “forensic turn” of the human rights movement.

I argue that a “human rights turn” in forensic anthropology took place at the same time. It should be emphasized that until the mid-1980s forensic anthropology was a discipline that only existed in the US. While there was biologically oriented anthropology in other countries, these experts did not typically work with police in a forensic capacity. This is because, in civil law systems, medical-legal institutes are responsible for forensic services related to questions of causes and circumstances of death. 

The question now is why forensic anthropology developed in the US. There, skeletal remains found in connection with suspected crimes always involved determining the “race” of the human remains. This had historical causes related to the displacement of Native Americans, slavery, the takeover of Spanish territories, and large waves of migration from Europe, East Asia, and Central America, as well as the associated societal stratification based on color lines or “race”. In other words, the question was whether the bone findings could be attributed to individuals of White, Black, Native American, Asian American, or Latinx descent. Therefore, the FBI sought the expertise of physical anthropologists.

Thomas Dale Stewart (1901–1997), physical anthropologist and founder of forensic anthropology, Department of Anthropology, Smithsonian Institution, measuring a skull for the FBI, 3 October 1950. Wikimedia commons.

Unlike in Europe, physical anthropology survived World War II unscathed in the US. This can be attributed to the racially segregated society. Interest in physical anthropology, a field that conducted comparative skeletal research and classified people based on supposed “racial characteristics”, declined significantly worldwide with decolonization. As mentioned above, the discipline had already lost much of its persuasive power after 1945. In the 1980s, when US forensic anthropologists began participating in international human rights investigations, a new field of activity opened up for physical anthropologists. This “human rights turn” enabled forensic anthropologists to distance themselves from the dark roots of physical anthropology and instead contribute positively by supporting victims of violent crimes and human rights violations.

You present a strong case for the continuities between physical anthropology, which emerged as scientific discipline in the 19th century, and modern-day forensic anthropology. You show, for example, that forensic anthropologists have continued to rely on racial classifications, even when terms such as “race” were replaced by “ancestry” in the 1990s. Are we merely dealing with a renaming of the discipline?

The emergence of forensic anthropology from physical anthropology in the US was a historical development. However, this is not a case of renaming, as the two disciplines were founded with different objectives in mind. In the 19th century, anthropology, and in the first half of the 20th century, physical anthropology served as a legitimizing science for the colonial and imperialist endeavors. They attempted to prove the supposed superior intelligence and value of Europeans based on supposed differences between human “races” on different continents. They used skulls to produce this knowledge, which, after the Nazi regime’s use of racial anthropology, was only in demand in countries with racial segregation or apartheid. Additionally, criminal anthropology briefly emerged at the end of the 19th century. This field attempted to categorize people as criminals based on facial physiognomy and craniometry. In essence, it sought to justify oppression and exploitation within European societies. However, it failed spectacularly.

Side view of a long skull with measuring lines, in: Meyers Großes Konversations-Lexikon, Volume 17, Leipzig 1909 (public domain).

After 1945, the term “physical anthropology” was replaced by “biological anthropology” or simply “anthropology” outside the US. Although comparative skeletal or racial research continued, it was increasingly less associated with value judgments. Terms such as “race” were reinterpreted as “ancestry” or “populations”. Hidden racism most likely persisted, but further research is needed to confirm this. In any case, until recently, forensic anthropology in the US regularly used physical anthropology methods to classify “races” based on human remains. The US association did not change its name to the American Association of Biological Anthropologists (previously Physical Anthropologists) until 2018, and it was not until 2019 that the association declared for the first time that “human racial groups” are not “biological categories”. Until then, the idea of the biological determinability of “races” had been maintained.

Biological anthropologists still exist today. They are now more likely to be found in evolutionary research. However, they are also involved in current restitution proceedings for human remains from colonial collections. In these proceedings, they draw on their knowledge of forensic anthropological databases (e.g., FORDISC). These databases are partially based on older physical anthropological skeletal comparisons of “races” and “ethnic groups”.

Forensic anthropology pursues other areas of interest. In the context of criminal investigations, they are involved in producing forensic knowledge. They attempt to determine the cause and circumstances of death, as well as identify the victim. Their work with police authorities has given rise to new areas of interest that have shaped the discipline, such as determining the age and sex of human remains and the time of death. 

The latter required more detailed studies of the decomposition processes of corpses under different conditions. In 1981, the first “body farm”, an outdoor facility where systematic experiments and observations are carried out, was established at the University of Tennessee. Investigations into crimes and murders committed during the Bosnian War (1992–1995) greatly advanced forensic anthropological knowledge. The discipline had never before been involved in examining such a large number of human remains in mass graves of recent origin or in finding and examining so many remains in wells, shafts, caves, and rivers. These efforts have led to significant advances in the understanding of the decomposition processes of corpses under such specific conditions. That was a significant expansion of knowledge.

Despite historical connections between physical and forensic anthropology, you show that forensic anthropologists see the beginning of their discipline in the 1980s’ human rights movement. How is it that human rights-oriented forensic anthropologists adopted the colonial and racial discourse of physical anthropology? Were there critical voices, too?

I wouldn’t say that they adopted the discourse of physical anthropology; rather, they adopted some of its methods and body of knowledge. Forensic anthropologists initially uncritically embraced the knowledge of supposed biological differences and classifications of humans, which was a significant aspect of physical anthropology. For example, Bosniak victims of the Srebrenica massacre were identified as “Caucasoid” in 1996. The same year, victims in Rwanda were identified as members of the “local population” during exhumations. However, there was no effort made to identify the victims as Tutsi or Hutu, thereby classifying them as supposedly biologically distinct groups.

UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan and Nane Annan laying a wreath at the Mwulire Memorial, Rwanda, 8 May 1998, UN Photo, UN7528249.

In cases of crimes committed under dictatorships, during wars, and in genocides, the victim groups are usually known. Since the 1990s, exhumations have mostly not required biological, “ethnic”, or “racial” differentiation. The situation is different when skeletal remains are unearthed in the US in cases of ‘ordinary’ murders. Critical forensic anthropologists point out that police authorities in the US continue to list victims as missing persons according to racial classifications. These critical forensic anthropologists advocate for reflection and distancing from these categories within the discipline.

Many of today’s forensic datasets still rely on skeletal collections with colonial or violent origins. Can forensic anthropologists reject the premises on which these collections were created and at the same time use them in their practice?

The scientific positioning of the discipline here hinders this critical process. Historically, anthropology developed from medicine and natural science. It was not until the late 19th and early 20th centuries that ethnology and Völkerkunde (in German-speaking countries), social anthropology (Great Britain), cultural anthropology (USA), and Durkheimian ethnology (France) developed as independent disciplines, splitting off from physical anthropology. 

Today, forensic anthropology, biological anthropology, and paleoanthropology are still considered natural science disciplines. The natural science paradigm leads to the perception of anthropological databases as objective natural knowledge, which they are not. This is because the supposed differences between “ethnicities” and “races”, and the resulting skull classifications that these databases produce, are often a product of biased assumptions and violent contexts, as you rightly say.

A critical approach to this data requires a reevaluation of the discipline’s history, which forensic anthropology has not yet sufficiently done. In practice, interdisciplinary collaboration can counter the pitfalls of the data. For example, historians can provide insights about the provenance of a skull in a colonial collection by consulting written records.[2]

As a historian, how do you methodically deal with sources such as autopsy reports, forensic records or collections of human remains?

That’s a good question. As part of my current research project, “Vision of Accountability: Global Transformation of Human Rights Activism, International Criminal Law Practice, and Humanitarian Interventions in the Post-Cold War Era”, I have been working with exhumation reports related to the Bosnian War, the Croatian War, and the Rwandan genocide. The exhumations were carried out for the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). 

In addition to the official forensic investigation reports, which were used as evidence in the trials, I work with excavation reports, autopsy reports, and accompanying photographic and video documentation. Additionally, some of the participating experts have written autobiographical texts, as well as scientific papers. I am interested in the practices and the forensic knowledge production. My research focuses on the challenges and problems that arose during the exhumations and identifications in the 1990s and early 2000s. I also research the cooperation between the forensic teams, which were initially heavily influenced by human rights organizations, and the two criminal tribunals.

Colour photograph with inset of skeleton – taken from William Haglund’s report titled ‘Forensic Investigation of the Pilica (Branjevo Farm) Grave Site’, 1996. Unified Court Records, IT-05-88 Popovic et al, Exhibit P02157 Prosecution.

The objectives of these exhumations, such as those related to the Srebrenica massacre, were twofold: first, to produce evidence, which was the primary objective of the ICTY, and second, to identify missing persons, which was an equally important objective for human rights-oriented forensic anthropologists. This point had the potential for conflict. The question was: Which was more important – gathering evidence for the prosecution of the perpetrators or alleviating the suffering of the families of the victims? This raises an important transitional justice question: How can retributive justice and a policy of remembrance contribute to societal reconciliation? This is especially relevant in polarized societies such as Bosnia and Herzegovina. I am using contemporary documents from forensic anthropologists to determine how they responded to these questions. Autobiographical material, administrative records of organizations, and expert testimony in court are more suitable for this purpose than autopsy reports.

You show that forensic investigations pursue different, sometimes conflicting interests – i.e. “truth-finding”, securing evidence for criminal prosecution, and enabling individual and collective mourning. How does the significance of human remains change when they are used as legal evidence, as objects of remembrance culture, or as symbols in human rights discourse?

Human bones, skeletons, and skulls, in particular, hold a strong fascination for us. Different cultures and religions have different approaches to and ways of dealing with human remains. These approaches are also subject to historical change. We can see this in our own society as well. For example, while it was common practice for medical students to privately purchase human skulls for educational purposes until the mid-20th century, it is now considered unethical. The same applies to displaying human remains in exhibitions and museums.

Conversely, there has been a shift in the fields of human rights, remembrance policy, and international criminal justice. Human remains and their forensic examination have become important evidence of injustice and crime. In Rwanda, for example, hundreds of skulls and thigh bones are displayed in every genocide memorial. They are treated as evidence of the genocide. The exhibition’s ethics are not the primary concern. 

In contrast, the annual memorial ceremony at the Srebrenica-Potočari Genocide Memorial and Cemetery includes burying newly identified missing persons. In the context of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s politics of memory, burials are important; the bones are not visible. In contrast, countless images of the human remains from the Srebrenica massacre are available online, depicting exhumations and forensic examinations. How can this contradiction be explained?

I interpret the forensic investigations of the Srebrenica massacre as emblematic in three ways. First, new forensic anthropological methods and practices were developed. Second, these forensic findings were included in international criminal justice for the first time. Third, a new forensic aesthetic and visuality related to mass violence was born. Media outlets and human rights organizations have adopted this aesthetic to generate public attention and sympathy. This is why the internet is full of the images. However, human remains are less significant as legal evidence of genocide in international criminal justice than is generally assumed.

That’s interesting. Could you explain why you believe that human remains are not particularly important for international criminal justice?

I wouldn’t say that human remains are irrelevant to international criminal justice. Finding missing persons – i.e., victims of mass crimes – is important for the prosecution’s case. This is particularly evident in situations where perpetrators attempt to conceal their crimes by burying bodies in mass graves or secondary mass graves, as was the case with the Srebrenica massacre. In such cases, forensic investigations are crucial. 

The graphic shows the relationship between five primary mass graves and 39 secondary mass graves in relation to the Srebrenica massacre, in: International Commission on Missing Persons (ICMP), Bosnia and Herzegovina. Missing Persons from the Armed Conflicts of the 1990s: A Stocktaking, Sarajevo 2014.

However, there is already a historical precedent for the opposite. During the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg (1945–1946), for example, the prosecution did not order any forensic investigations to be carried out in extermination camps. This omission did not affect the defendants’ convictions because sufficient written documents from the Nazi regime proved the systematic and widespread persecution and extermination of European Jews and other victim groups. 

Nevertheless, in retrospect, the lack of intensive forensic investigations at the time can be described as a mistake because, immediately after the war, denials arose about the existence of gas chambers and extermination camps and about the planned character of the mass murder of six million Jews. Holocaust denial persists among right-wing extremists to this day. Forensic investigations can counter such denials with evidence. This is the important significance of human rights-oriented forensic anthropology, in my opinion.

Between 1997 and 2015, many genocide convictions were handed down during criminal trials before the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). The mass murder of 500,000 to 800,000 people and committing, being an accomplice in, or aiding and abetting genocide by the individual defendants did not have to be proven by forensic evidence. A large number of survivors and a smaller number of foreign observers of the mass violence testified in court. This evidence was sufficient. 

In the case of the Srebrenica massacre, which the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) recognized as genocide, the evidence consisted of a combination of forensic investigation results, expert witness statements, survivor testimonies, and perpetrator confessions. The latter were particularly important for proving the chain of command. International criminal justice primarily concerns convicting heads of state and high-ranking generals. To achieve this, confessions from perpetrators are required if no written documentation is available. Perpetrators from lower ranks made plea deals with the ICTY prosecution and acted as witnesses in trials against their superiors or the state and military leadership. This occurred in the Srebrenica trials before the ICTY. Ultimately, Radovan Karadžić and Ratko Mladić were proven guilty of genocide based on these perpetrator statements.

Looking ahead: Do you see opportunities for forensic anthropology to gain new significance outside of criminal law, for example in contexts of remembrance or restitution?

The beginning of the “human rights turn” in the 1980s and its global breakthrough in the 1990s opened a field of activity for forensic anthropology in memory politics. The question, however, is whether the core expertise of forensic anthropology – the identification of human remains – is still in such high demand today. Since the 2000s, forensic genetics has emerged as a new identification method. Currently, DNA is extracted from bones and compared with DNA databases or samples from relatives to identify victims of crimes. However, in cases of mass crimes involving a large number of victims, genetic identification is an expensive process.

Nevertheless, when it comes to exhumations, forensic anthropology will continue to be in demand. There is undoubtedly a need for it. After the wars and mass violence of the 20th century, millions of human remains remain buried around the world. For example, large exhumation projects are currently underway in Vietnam, where the government has initiated the search for, reburial of, and identification of over 200,000 North Vietnamese soldiers as part of its remembrance policy. This project will continue for several years and will certainly require the support of forensic anthropologists.


[1] Alexa Stiller works on a project entitled “Visions of Accountability: Global Transformation of Human Rights Activism, International Criminal Law Practices, and Humanitarian Interventions in the Post-Cold War Era”. A detailed article will be published soon: Human Remains als Beweise: Die Geschichte der forensischen Anthropologie zwischen Völkerstrafrecht, Menschenrechtsaktivismus und Skelettsammlungen, in: Alexa Stiller/ Željana Tunić (eds.), Knochen lügen nie? Themenheft. Historische Anthropologie (2025) 3. Also see the introduction to the special issue: Einleitung: Faktizität und Fragilität von Knochen, in: Alexa Stiller/ Željana Tunić (eds.), Knochen lügen nie? Themenheft. Historische Anthropologie (2025) 3.

[2] See interview with Holger Stoecker: 15 Jahre Provenienzforschung an kolonialen Schädelsammlungen – eine Zwischenbilanzin: Alexa Stiller/ Željana Tunić (eds.), Knochen lügen nie? Themenheft. Historische Anthropologie (2025) 3.