Revisiting and Rethinking
the Hair Sample from the
Somerton Man Bust...
When Forensic Science Meets Craft
For years, the prevailing view has been that the hair embedded in the Somerton Man’s plaster death mask came from the man himself. This assumption shaped the course of a whole narrative surrounding DNA found in samples of hair extracted from the bust with DNA analysis, public identification claims, and forensic storytelling. But in the quiet corners of the available information, a small dark coloured band in a single strand of hair has commenced a totally new and very different story.
It began with a photograph, one published in the IEEE Spectrum Magazine article by Professor Derek Abbott showing a magnified view of a hair shaft reported by the Professor to have been taken from the plaster bust of the Somerton Man. The image referred to here reveals a distinct banding mark near the tip of the hair. Abbott described it as post mortem banding (PMRB), a phenomenon where a hair shed after death forms an dark but opaque ring near the root.
LINK 1 HERE
LINK 2 HERE
LINK 3 HERE
But there was a problem: the banding in the image doesn’t appear near the root at all. It shows up much closer to the distal end, and that is exactly where antemortem banding (AMRB) forms in living individuals. This isn't just a technical disagreement, it's a clearly visible forensic clue. And we’ve spent much of the past year quietly building the context to understand it.
The hair gathered could have come from a male or female, in the available documentation I did not find a mention of the sex of the hair donor.
What’s Hair Doing in Plaster?
The research into historical bust-making practices reveals a simple truth: human hair was commonly added to plaster formulations, especially in the mid-20th century. Sculptors used it as a fine reinforcement, allowing plaster casts to hold delicate facial detail in place. The hair was collected by hair traders, who sourced it not from forensic scenes but from hairdressers salons.
Picture a 1940s hairdresser in Adelaide or even in Melbourne. At the end of the day, sweepings from the floor would be carefully gathered, including straight strands, curls, the odd grey. A trader would come by, collecting bundles in muslin sacks. Some would be destined for wigmakers, others for eyebrow wigs (yes, truly!), and some for sculptural use. In more recent times before resale, the hair which sometimes came complete with roots, was washed, boiled, straightened, and packed for delivery. In earlier days the process may not have been so refined. How human hair is treated:
LINK HERE
None of this collected hair came from cadavers. All of it came from the living.
Why This Matters
It now looks certain that the hair used for reinforcing the plaster in the Somerton Man bust most likely came from a trader and the banding visible in the photographed strand is antemortem by definition. While there is a chance that some strands of hair came from the head pf the man of whom the bust was made, it is increasingly likely that they did not, they cam instead from the floor of a hairdressers salon . That of course raises serious implications for the DNA analysis that followed over the last 12 years:
The identification of Carl Webb is quite possibly based on DNA not belonging to the Somerton Man.
The sample may reflect someone entirely unconnected to the case — a hair dressers salon donor from 1940s South Australia or Victoria, traders seemed to exist in all States, in fact some human hair was imported.
The forensic narrative must now be adjusted to reflect the craft origins of the plaster in the bust, not just the history of the man it is meant to portray.
The Human Story Beneath the Mystery
Let's be clear this finding isn’t about casting aspersions or attacking reputations. It’s about following the evidence and seeking the truth, even when it shows up as a tiny darkened band in a hair. It’s a reminder that history and science are often shaped by the same things, curiosity and an understanding that every artifact we find carries a human story.
In closing off this post, I will shortly be posting an extensive list of sources on the topic of the use of hair in plaster models and busts.
Good heavens how long has that photograph been in the article? Could be a mistake I suppose but it seems clear enough. How will they be able to explain it. May be a classic case of overreaching.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting, the logic says that the image on the IEEE site has been mistakenly labelled as a Post Mortem banding mark but such marks appear very close to the hair root bulb. You can see that in the photo next to the wrongly labelled one. The one displayed by Professor Abbott is not a Post Mortem example, according to the science, that image is Ante Mortem and that only comes from a live person. Does that mean that all the hairs found on the bust are from live subjects? We can't actually say that without seeing all of the hairs taken from the bust by the Professor and his team. We can however say that given the one example that we can now see, there would probably have been more.
ReplyDeleteI reckon that when the SAPOL Forensic people looked at this they would have very quickly voiced their very informed opinions loud and clear. It was a bamboozle attempt. No wonder there's been no result, everyone's wondering how they can protect the reputation of Adelaide University.
ReplyDeleteIt's on the nose a bit. Makes you wonder of the whole set up was reverse engineered. You should look at that GC
ReplyDeleteWould a hair from the then living nephew Charles Richard Webb provide the Colleen Fitzpatrick result that was delivered to us?
ReplyDeleteHi Alan, short answer is 'yes' in fact If I understand the science correctly, there would be hundreds of distant and close relatives that could provide the same result. I am just finishing of a new article ready to post which I think you will find interesting. When its posted, your feedback would be appreciated.
DeleteAlan, see todays post..
ReplyDelete