The History of Fingerprinting

There is ample evidence that mankind's interest in fingerprints dates back to prehistory. On a cliff face in Nova Scotia there is a petroglyph showing a hand with exaggerated finger whorls and other ridge markings, presumably left by prehistoric Native Americans. Fingerprints were reportedly impressed on clay tablets from ancient China and Babylon, as well as on Chinese documents of the Tang Dynasty.

Theuniqueness of each fingerprint has also been noted throughout history. In fourteenth-century Persia, a government official who was also a physician noted that no two persons had identical fingerprints. At the time, official government papers were reportedly impressed with fingerprints, although this was more likely a matter of superstition than a scientific attempt at identification.

In the 17th century, Marcello Malphighi, a professor of anatomy at the University of Bologna, used the newly invented microscope to study the surface of the skin. He noted the elevated ridges on the skin of the fingers and described them as "loops and spirals," but made no comment on their possible use as tools of identification.

A more modern usage of fingerprints as seals on contracts occurred in 1858 in the Hooghly district of India. Frustrated by the native population's cavalier attitude toward honoring contracts, chief administrative officer Sir William Herschel required businessmen to place palmprints and later fingerprints on contracts in addition to their signatures. According to Herschel, the idea was ". . . to frighten [the signer] out of all thought of repudiating his signature."

Still, the concept of fingerprints as personal identification had not yet surfaced. It took another long-standing human concern to bring about the science of fingerprinting. This was the social imperative to identify people who had committed crimes, and particularly those who had committed multiple offenses.

Scarlet Letters

Long before forensic scientists became interested in fingerprints, societies of all eras had recognized a need to stigmatize transgressors. The earliest uses of "biometric" identification consisted of inflicting scars, brands, or tattoos on the offender. The Roman legions reportedly used tattoos to identify mercenary soldiers, who might otherwise have a tendency to desert.

Dismemberment was (and in some countries, still is) a radical but effective way of marking a thief. But this type of mutilation, like branding and tattooing, died out in most countries as civilization developed a system of criminal law and a greater sense of the importance of the individual.

Then as now, society judged that those who committed more than one crime should be punished more severely than first-time offenders. To avoid the harsher punishment, of course, recidivists sought to conceal their earlier offenses-and the easiest way to do so was to assume a false identity.

In the absence of a positive method of personal identification, this was a relatively easy task. In time, it became obvious that many career criminals were being treated as first offenders, a fact which galled detectives, judges, and jailers worldwide. The law enforcement community thus turned its attention in earnest to the problem of positive personal identification.

Forensic Biometrics: Bertillon and Anthropometry

The first widely accepted scientific method of biometric identification was developed by Alphonse Bertillon in the late 1800s. Also called anthropometry or Bertillonage, the Bertillon system relied on a combination of physical measurements taken by carefully prescribed procedures. These included the skull width, foot length, cubit, trunk and left middle finger. These measurements, along with hair color, eye color and front and side view photographs, were recorded on cardboard forms. By dividing each of the measurements into small, medium and large groupings, Bertillon could place the dimensions of any single person into one of 243 distinct categories.

Upon arrest, a criminal was measured, described and photographed. The completed card was indexed andplaced in the appropriate category. In a file of 5,000 records, each of the primary categories would hold only about 20 cards. It was therefore not difficult to compare the new record to each of the other cards in the same category. If a match was discovered, the new offense was recorded on the criminal's card.

The Bertillon system was officially adopted by the Paris Police in 1882 and quickly spread throughout France, Europe and the rest of the world. In 1887 it was introduced into the United States by Major R. W. McClaughry, warden of the Illinois State Penitentiary. Several other states, including New York, also began to record and maintain Bertillon records on convicted criminals.

Drawbacks of Bertillonage

Ironically, the initial enthusiasm for the Bertillon system actually pointed out one of its drawbacks. As law enforcement agencies began compiling larger and larger libraries of Bertillon cards, the number of cards in each category grew steadily. Although 243 categories were more than sufficient for a small agency, large institutions like the New York State Department of Prisons found that the time required to search for duplicate cards had increased from minutes to hours. As a result, more and more agencies began using sub-classifications such as hair color to help in the sorting process.

A second drawback was the technical difficulty of taking accurate measurements, which required close attention to procedures on the part of the measurement taker and cooperation on the part of the subject. Because of the system's complexity, training was an ongoing concern.

Although the problems of classification and quality control could be dealt with, Bertillonage had another flaw that ultimately led to its eventual abandonment as an identification tool: Bertillon measurements were not, in fact, unique. Several cases of mistaken identity proved that there were certain common physical characteristics that appeared to be identical within the limits of accuracy of the system.

One of the most prominent cases of mistaken identity involving the Bertillon system was that of Will West. On arriving at the Federal Penitentiary at Leavenworth in 1903, West denied any previous incarceration there; but when the record clerk took his Bertillon measurements, they matched those on file for William West. In addition, the photographs of William West looked identical to the new prisoner. But when the clerk turned over the card, it showed that William West was currently imprisoned in Leavenworth.

In addition to their similarity in name, the two men did, in fact, look almost identical. The formulas derived from their Bertillon measurements were also nearly identical, well within the range that could be attributed to individual variations in measuring technique. When their fingerprints were taken and compared, however, there was no resemblance. The West case thus simultaneously discredited three widely-used methods of personal identification-name, photograph, and Bertillon measurements-while confirming the accuracy and utility of fingerprint identification. Although some agencies continued to use the Bertillon system until the 1930s, fingerprinting was obviously the identification system of the future.

The Fingerprint as Identifier

Returning to colonial India, we find Sir William Herschel presiding over a rapidly growing collection of fingerprints. Although his original motive in acquiring the prints was moral enforcement rather than scientific inquiry, Herschel was coming to believe that they could, in fact, prove identity.

Other researchers of the period were drawing similar conclusions. Dr. Henry Faulds, the British Surgeon-Superintendent of Tsukiji Hospital in Tokyo, began studying fingerprints during the 1870s after noting finger marks on old pottery. Faulds realized early on that the distinctive ridge patterns held potential for individual identification. He published an article on fingerprinting in the Scientific Journal, "Nautre," in which he discussed fingerprints as a means of personal identification, and the use of printer's ink as a method for recording them. He is also credited with one of the earliest fingerprint identifications: that of a fingerprint left on an alcohol bottle by a laboratory worker.

Faulds submitted his work to Charles Darwin, who was at that time old and in poor health. Darwin declined to participate in further fingerprint research, but forwarded the information to his nephew, the British scientist Sir Francis Galton. Through close examination of a collection of fingerprints provided by Sir William Herschel, Galton was able to prove that fingerprints do not change over the course of an individual's lifetime, and that no two fingerprints are exactly the same. He was also the first to identify the unique ridge characteristics that we now know as minutiae, but which are still often referred to as "Galton's details."

By this time, the concept of fingerprinting as a method of uniquely identifying the individual was firmly established. But another hurdle remained, one very similar to that encountered by the Bertillon system. Without an efficient method of categorizing and filing large numbers of fingerprint records, their use would be severely limited. This led to the next, and most significant, step in the science of fingerprinting: the development of a fingerprint classification system.

Fingerprint Analysis And Classification Systems

As early as 1823, the Czech physiologist Johannes Evengelista Purkinje had made a study of the varying ridge patterns in fingerprints and grouped them into nine varieties. But he had no interest in fingerprints as an identification tool and made no effort to apply his findings to the classification problem.

Both Galton and Faulds had recognized the classification problem and had begun working on solutions. Galton identified three basic pattern types (loop, whorl, and arch) and developed a classification system based on the distribution of the pattern types among the ten fingers. Galton classifications were simply alphabetical enumerations of the patterns: for example, LLAWL LWWLL. The system worked, but it was destined to be superseded by a superior method-and once again, the answer came from British colonial India.

During the 1890s, British official Sir Edward Richard Henry was encountering the same types of problems in Bengal that had prompted Herschel to begin using fingerprints in the Hooghly District. Believing that a fingerprinting system was the answer to his problems, Henry began a correspondence with Galton and later visited him in England. On returning to Bengal, Henry ordered that fingerprints and Bertillon measurements be taken of all prisoners under his jurisdiction.

The fingerprint classification problem was yet to be resolved, as Henry noted in a report dated July 1896. Shortly thereafter, Henry reached that solution himself. There are conflicting reports as to the method by which Henry developed his classification system, which is based on numerical values for each finger and on the presence or absence of whorls in each finger. Regardless of the details, the Henry system was successful. It produced 1,024 primary classifications, and was instituted in Bengal in early 1897. The system worked so well that Henry formally requested that the Government of India consider the possibility of replacing Bertillonage with fingerprinting as the primary means of identification.

Henry's request was granted. An independent committee met in March 1897 and concluded that fingerprinting was superior to Bertillonage. In June of that same year, the Governor General signed a resolution directing that fingerprinting was to be the official method of identifying criminals in British India.

Once the Henry Fingerprint Classification System had proved successful in India, another committee was named to review Scotland Yard's identification methods. This committee also recommended that Bertillonage be abandoned in favor of fingerprinting.

In 1901, Henry was transferred to England, where he established Scotland Yard's Central Fingerprint Bureau and began training investigators in the use of his system. Within a few years, the Henry system was in world-wide use, and fingerprinting had taken its place as the universally accepted method of personal identification.