Alphonse Bertillon, "Murder of Madame Veuve Bol, Projection on a Vertical Plane" (1904), from the 'Album of Paris Crime Scenes (1901–08), gelatin silver prints (courtesy the Metropolitan Museum of Art)

Alphonse Bertillon, “Murder of Madame Veuve Bol, Projection on a Vertical Plane” (1904), from the ‘Album of Paris Crime Scenes (1901–08), gelatin silver prints (courtesy the Metropolitan Museum of Art)

French criminologist Alphonse Bertillon believed each person’s physical measurements were as distinct as their fingerprints, and devised the first modern mug shots as part of his classification system in the 19th century. Using the still-new medium of photography, each person was captured both from the front and in profile. The idea was that the shape of the ears, the circumference of the head, and other such undisguisable characteristics could be used to identify criminals at a time when eyewitness reports still guided arrests.

Bertillon’s idea that every person had totally unique measurements is now mostly debunked (thanks in part to the case of two William Wests with nearly identical physical characteristics, aside from their fingerprints). Adding to the disregard of chance in his work, and the collapse of his reputation through his poor handwriting analysis that figured in the Dreyfus Affair, it was a convoluted system replaced in law enforcement by simpler fingerprinting. Bertillon’s system also reflected racist applications of eugenics and phrenology, and laid the groundwork for problematic profiling in the 20th century. Yet his mug shots endure as an intriguing form of early portraiture, and his crime scene photographs still startle through his inventive technique, which involved a camera positioned high on a tripod.

Alphonse Bertillon, “Summary Chart of Physical Traits for the Study or the ‘Portrait Parlé’” (1909), gelatin silver print (courtesy the Metropolitan Museum of Art) (click to enlarge)

Bertillon is included in Crime Stories: Photography and Foul Play at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, which brings together some 70 works from the museum’s collections. The exhibition is a bit disjointed, presenting contemporary art like Andy Warhol’s overplayed “Electric Chair” and Larry Clark’s portrait of two swaggering Oklahoma robbers alongside graphic photographs from crime scenes. The most famous crime photographer, Weegee, is of course included, as is Alexander Gardner’s sequence on the hanging of the Lincoln assassination conspirators.

Crime Stories presents Bertillon as part of the visual culture of crime. It avoids any of the complicated profiling aspects of his work, such as his publishing of “les races sauvages [the savage races]” while he was considering his bertillonage system of anthropometry.

Frontisepiece from Alphonse Bertillon’s ‘Identification anthropométrique’ (1893) (via Wikimedia)

Self-portrait mug shot by Alphonse Bertillon (1893) (via Wikimedia)

A class studying Bertillon’s method of criminal identification (1910–15) (via Library of Congress/Wikimedia) (click to enlarge)

Crime Stories includes 60 of Bertillon’s “Mug Shots of Suspected Anarchists from French Police Files” from 1891 to 1895, a fascinating grid of late 19th-century Parisian faces, in which you can spy anarchist bomber Ravachol, whose 1892 arrest was facilitated by the photograph. There’s also an album of Bertillon’s Paris crime scene photography, open to a page showing a woman collapsed on a zigzag-patterned wood floor, the detached aerial view feeling like a film noir still. (The museum has the whole album digitized online, although be warned these are photographs of murders, and some are quite grotesque.)

Bertillon’s system was successful in some ways. Before his work, there was no easy way to identify repeat offenders, whereas with his system the photographs, and measurements of such things like the angles of a skull, provided a way to record serial criminals.

The Paris police started using his system in 1883. NPR’s All Things Considered, in their story on Bertillon, reports that in 1884 alone “Bertillon’s system helped Parisian police identify 241 repeat offenders.” In the following years, it was adopted across the United States and Great Britain.

Fingerprinting ultimately made Bertillon’s system obsolete, as it was a much easier process for the average police officer, and, oddly, was the one distinct physical attribute Bertillon overlooked. On his tombstone in Père Lachaise Cemetery, he’s still proudly immortalized in metal, examining his measuring tools, and the camera that proved to be his most enduring legacy. His systematic method of documentary photography is now an intriguing work of 19th-century portraiture, even if that was never his intent.

Alphonse Bertillon, “Mug Shots of Suspected Anarchists from French Police Files” (1891–95) on view in ‘Crime Stories: Photography and Foul Play’ at the Metropolitan Museum of Art (photo by the author for Hyperallergic)

Mug shots in Alphonse Bertillon’s “Album of Paris Crime Scenes” (1901–08) (via Metropolitan Museum of Art/Wikimedia)

Alphonse Bertillon, “Mug Shots of Suspected Anarchists from French Police Files” (1891–95) on view in ‘Crime Stories: Photography and Foul Play’ at the Metropolitan Museum of Art (photo by the author for Hyperallergic)

Mug shots in Alphonse Bertillon’s “Album of Paris Crime Scenes” (1901–08) (via Metropolitan Museum of Art/Wikimedia)

Alphonse Bertillon, “Mug Shots of Suspected Anarchists from French Police Files” (1891–95) on view in ‘Crime Stories: Photography and Foul Play’ at the Metropolitan Museum of Art (photo by the author for Hyperallergic)

Mug shot in Alphonse Bertillon’s “Album of Paris Crime Scenes” (1901–08) (via Metropolitan Museum of Art/Wikimedia)

Alphonse Bertillon, “Mug Shots of Suspected Anarchists from French Police Files” (1891–95) on view in ‘Crime Stories: Photography and Foul Play’ at the Metropolitan Museum of Art (photo by the author for Hyperallergic)

Mug shots in Alphonse Bertillon’s “Album of Paris Crime Scenes” (1901–08) (via Metropolitan Museum of Art/Wikimedia)

Crime Stories: Photography and Foul Play continues through July 31 at the Metropolitan Museum of Art (1000 Fifth Avenue, Upper East Side, Manhattan).

The Latest

Stories That Need to Be Told

Stories That Need to Be Told

Artist Minouk Lim wants to offer a very different perspective on how one might deal with a grim history whose effects continue to be felt in the present.

Required Reading

Required Reading

This week: Should Washington have a national memorial for gun violence? Have cats used us to take over the world? What is Cluttercore? And more.

Allison Meier

Allison C. Meier is a former staff writer for Hyperallergic. Originally from Oklahoma, she has been covering visual culture and overlooked history for print...

4 replies on “The Mug Shot’s Origins in Debunked 19th-Century Science”

  1. Uh, not sure why you say these ideas are debunked. That’s how facial recognition works. That’s how airports let you through by comparing your passport to your face. They use things like the distance between your eyes and other ratios they can extract from your face. If anything the man was ahead of his time.

    1. Perhaps debunked isn’t the right word, but the idea of human measuring is no longer seen as totally distinct: “In 1903, a man named Will West was committed to the penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas, where he was photographed and measured using the Bertillon system. Will West’s measurements were found to be almost identical to a criminal at the same penitentiary named William West, who was committed for murder in 1901 and was serving a life sentence. Furthermore, their photographs showed that the two men bore a close physical resemblance to one another, although it was not clear that they were even related. In the ensuing confusion surrounding the true identities of the two men, their fingerprints conclusively identified them and demonstrated clearly that the adoption of a fingerprint identification system was more reliable than the older Bertillon system.” http://www.nleomf.org/museum/news/newsletters/online-insider/november-2011/bertillon-system-criminal-identification.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/

      1. That’s simply a case of not having enough parameters, or not having accurate enough measurements of the parameters that they did have. Fingerprints aren’t foolproof either, even DNA isn’t foolproof when the machines are used past their operating ranges (see Knox case in Italy). Every biometric is a matter of getting enough bits of distinction to make non-uniqueness extremely improbable. If Bertillon’s theory was that physical measurements can be as unique as fingerprints, then it’s a fundamentally correct insight.

        1. Well, we will have to disagree. I can cite examples and perhaps I didn’t explain it clearly in this article. Here is more:

          “I based my claim that Bertillonage was thoroughly debunked on two factors: (1) that the practice suffered from what is known in statistics as “endogeneity;” and (2) that it’s no longer used anywhere. Endogeneity is a relatively simple problem: you may underestimate the likelihood of two “chance” occurrences happening together if they are, in fact, correlated. The chance of any given person being a Stanford alumnus is relatively small; and the chances of any given person owning a red T-shirt may also be small, but the number of Stanford alumni who own red T-shirts may be much higher than “chance”: Stanford’s official school color, as emblazoned on many T-shirts, is cardinal.”

          https://law.stanford.edu/2013/06/11/lawandbiosciences-2013-06-11-maryland-v-king-corrections-department-david-kaye-on-bertillonage/

Comments are closed.