Available via license: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal Pre-proof
What happened to the body of Julia Pastrana (1834-1860)? Addressing
ethical issues and human remains
Nicholas M´
arquez-Grant
PII: S2665-9107(20)30052-9
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsir.2020.100103
Reference: FSIR 100103
To appear in: Forensic Science International: Reports
Received Date: 30 March 2020
Revised Date: 5 May 2020
Accepted Date: 5 May 2020
Please cite this article as: M ´
arquez-Grant N, What happened to the body of Julia Pastrana
(1834-1860)? Addressing ethical issues and human remains, Forensic Science International:
Reports (2020), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsir.2020.100103
This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as
the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the
definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and
review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early
visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be
discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal
pertain.
© 2020 Published by Elsevier.
What happened to the body of Julia Pastrana (1834-1860)? Addressing ethical issues
and human remains
Nicholas Márquez-Grant
Cranfield Forensic Institute, Cranfield University, Defence Academy of the United Kingdom, Shrivenham SN6 8LA, UK
n.marquezgrant@cranfied.ac.uk
In July 1857, the journal The Lancet published a note by Laurence [1] on a bearded and hairy
lady who was visiting London that year as part of a show in Regent Gallery. Her name was
Julia Pastrana. A few years later, in May 1862, the examination of her embalmed and
dissected body and that of her child were outlined by Sokolov [2]. Julia Pastrana, was a
talented artist, although due to her physical condition was exhibited as part of the so called
‘freak shows’ or ‘circuses’ that toured North America and Europe in the 19th century [3,4,5].
Her condition was characterised by excessive hair growth over most of her body and an
overdeveloped jaw [6,7] which Bondeson and Miles [6] in a detailed account diagnosed as
congenital generalised hypertrichosis terminalis with gingival hyperplasia. Other individuals
with this condition were also exhibited in the 19th and early 20th centuries [4,5] and the
condition is still present today [8].
Julia Pastrana entered history as one of the most extreme and earliest reported cases of this
condition and, unfortunately after her death in 1860 her body was regularly exhibited in a
number of shows until the second half of the 20th century. With monikers such as the
‘Victorian Ape Woman’, the ‘Non-descript’, the ‘Bear Woman’, the ‘Bearded Lady’, ‘The
Ugliest Woman in the World’ and described by Darwin [9] as ‘a Spanish dancer, [who] was
a remarkably fine woman, but she had a thick masculine beard and a hairy forehead’, she
laid in a mortuary at the Institute of Forensic Medicine, Oslo, since the mid 1970s with
attempts in the 1990s to rebury her [10,11]. So, What happened to the body of Julia Pastrana?
Apart from recent publications in the Humanities and Social Sciences [12], a book bringing
several disciplines together [13] and press releases [e.g. 14,15,16], there has been no news in
the scientific (medical, biological, forensic, anatomical) sphere. Whilst The Lancet published
news on her life and death, this paper brings closure, addressing her repatriation and burial.
Her life history as well as the fame she achieved in life as well as in death has been portrayed
by Gylseth and Toverud [10], and more recently by Anderson Barbata [13]. Julia Pastrana
was born in 1834 in the region of Sinaloa, Mexico. It is understood that as a child she worked
and lived at the house of the governor of Sinaloa, where she was discovered by an American
entrepeneur. Julia’s artistic talents included singing, dancing and playing a musical
instrument. She eventually married her manager, Theodore Lent, and in 1860 in Moscow she
gave birth to a child with a similar condition. Respectively, both mother and child died days
and hours after the birth. The bodies were sold to Professor J. Sokolov who examined and
embalmed the bodies at the University of Moscow [2]; after which Lent, Julia’s widower and
Journal Pre-proof
agent, reclaimed the bodies when he saw a financial opportunity in exhibiting both mother
and child even after death, including an exhibition in London, UK, in 1862. After Lent’s
death, the bodies were ‘owned’ by different individuals and appeared in public exhibitions in
Europe and North America; it was in the 1970s when the bodies ceased to be exhibited
following public opposition [12]. Subsequently, Julia and her child’s bodies were eventually
stored in a building in Oslo, Norway, which was broken into in the late 1970s resulting in
damage to Julia’s body and the disappearance of the child’s body. In 1990, it was announced
in the Norwegian Press [10] that the embalmed body of Julia Pastrana had been found at the
Institute for Forensic Medicine in Oslo, after which Julia’s remains were transferred to the
the Department of Anatomy at the University of Oslo. The body of the child has never been
recovered. In recent years, the issue of her repatriation to Mexico and her burial emerged
once again.
Certainly, there has been a number of ethical issues surrounding the excavation, analysis,
retention and display of human remains; aspects which bioarchaeologists, physical
anthropologists and forensic scientists have been increasingly aware of [17]. On the one
hand, the analysis of human remains can provide valuable information about the past,
including information on diet, the origin and evolution of disease, mortality, morbidity, level
of violence, medical care and funerary practices in different periods of Prehistory and History
[18,19]. In addition, the forensic cases follow certain medico-legal requirements, brings
where possible identification of the deceased, a dignified burial and closure to families. On
the other hand, retention of human remains in museums and other institutions is important for
education as well as for future research; since as new techniques advance, further information
and other interpretations can be provided [20,21]. By contrast, there are a number of ethical
issues surrounding human remains both in bioarchaeology [17] as well as in forensic contexts
[17, 22]. Sometimes the remains may be archaeological or historical in date, yet they may fall
first under cases investigatied by law enforecement and forensic scieentists, such as the
selling of human tissue or assessing the provenance of unidentified skeletal [e.g. 23,24].
Whilst working as a forensic anthropologist in a number of recent cases regarding accidental,
natural, violent, suicidal deaths, the current author got involved in 2011 when contacted by
Mexican institutions, press and a number of individuals after his edited volume on legislation
[25] was published, and was asked about his (scientific) opinion and possible
recommendations on the possible repatriation of Julia Pastrana’s body from Norway back to
Mexico and her subsequent burial.
However, the issue of claim and repatriation is not straightforward. Certainly, the issue of
retention of human remains has been a matter of ethical debate [26,27,28,29,30]. One such
example in the UK, is the skeleton of Charles Byrne displayed in a London museum [31].
Museums are increasingly under pressure to repatriate human remains – whether a body, an
incomplete body or only a small fragment of body- from their collections, usually where
skulls in particular were obtained during and after colonisation of certain territories. These
claims for repatriation may be substantiated by genetic, cultural, religious, and geographic
links, amongst other factors, between the claimaints and the deceased [27,28]. These requests
tend to be assessed by institutions on a case by case basis and the process can be long.
Examples of successful claims for repatriation and (re)burial are that of Saartjie ‘Sarah’
Baartman (1789-1815) whose body was displayed until the 1970s in Museé de L’Homme in
Paris, and finally buried in South Africa in 2002 [32]. Another example relates to the ‘last’
Tasmanian woman, Truganini, whose body was retained due to scientific interest when she
Journal Pre-proof
died in 1876 and it was not until 1976 when her body was repatriated, cremated and her ashes
scattered in a specific place as she had requested prior to her death [26].
For a number of years the repatriation requests to bring Julia Pastrana’s body back to Mexico
was impulsed and led ultimately by artist Laura Anderson Barbata. Although in full time
forensic anthropological casework, the author decided to voluntarily assist in this request.
From the scientific point of view, the dilemma was that of retention versus repatriation; from
a personal perspective, much thought was placed into providing an opinion and potentially
supporting and assisting in this case. An objective consideration was undertaken by the
author with regard to the reasons which had been proposed for repatriation and burial, the
value of retaining Julia Pastrana’s body for future research to enchance our understanding of
the 19th century especially around living conditions at the time, the amount of research that
had been carried out already, the uniqueness of her condition in the history of medicine, and
whether research on her body would assist in understanding the condition further. In addition,
if repatriation were to be granted, assurance had to be made with regard to no further
exhibition of her body in Mexico and that her remains be buried in a secure and protected
grave. From the author’s point of view, answers to these questions proposed a case towards
repatriation and burial. As highlighted in Márquez-Grant [33] the questions the present author
considered included:
• Who is requesting the repatriation and/or (re)burial and what are the reasons?
• If the body is to be retained by an academic institution and access granted for research, what
will we learn about living conditions and history during a particular period?
• Does study help in our understanding of the evolution of health and disease?
• What do we know about the pathological condition of Julia’s body today, and are there
similar cases?
• Do the reasons for retention involve research and education? Is the body curated in adequate
facilities?
• Was she ever buried?
• Would Pastrana have wanted to return to Mexico?
• What is the legislation in Norway in this regard? Who has the power to decide: the
university, the scientist, the government?
• If the body is repatriated, can prior research be done using CT scans, radiographs,
photographs, and other nondestructive techniques? Should a sample of DNA be taken for
future analysis? Would this data be available for study by bona fide researchers in the future?
• How can we ensure that there are no financial gains as a result of repatriation, no exhibition,
no cremation, but a funeral and a dignified burial in a protected grave?
More importantly, these views were expressed by the Norwegian National Committee for the
Evaluation of Research on Human Remains and their recommendation to the University of
Oslo was indeed crucial. In their assessment of such case [34] whilst a coordinated
Journal Pre-proof
repatriation was proposed; maintaining some scientific documentation and samples
potentially for DNA analysis in the future were also encouraged. The opinion of the National
Committee was established by taking into account that the body belonged to a known
individual, the antiquity of the remains in that they were relatively close to the present day
and the (unacceptable) treatment of Julia’s body after death, especially around the continued
exhibiting of her and her child’s body due to their physical appearance. Although Julia’s
wishes were not known, the Committee thought unlikely that she would wish for her body to
be stored in a university museum in northern Europe.
The author, recommended a number of imaging documentation (photograph, radiography) be
undertaken and a sample for future DNA analysis. These were undertaken by the forensic
pathologists and anthropologists at the University of Oslo. In addition, the author provided
information regarding the repatriation process and companies that could help from personal
experience in forernsic cases and moreover, acted as a witness to the handing over of the
body of Julia Pastrana from the University of Oslo to the Mexican authorities. This took place
on the 7th of February 2013. After examing the body, and removing her shoes and bolts to
attach these to the body, albeit left with her, Julia Pastran’s body was finally sealed in a
coffin and taken to a chapel in Norway where a service took place, attended by Human
Rights groups, disability groups and other notable figures, general members of the public,
scientists, representatives of the Mexian government and the University of Oslo. The body of
Julia Pastrana then initiated its physical journey back to Mexico where she was finally laid to
rest in a respectful and dignified burial attended by many on the 12th February 2013 in her
place of origin, Sinaloa de Leyra.
Altough in the following years after her burial, the auhor understood that there may have
been some political propaganda exploiting this repatriation; what he did realise is that
regardless how far back in time this named individual is from, and regardless of any available
resources, people are always remembered and there will be an effort to never forget those that
missed the chance of a dignified burial. It may be that some of these ethical reflections may
be relevant to forensic anthropological casework too.
Figure Credit
Credit: Julia Pastrana, a bearded woman. Process print after G. Wick. Credit:
Wellcome Collection. Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
THERE ARE NO CONFLICT OF INTERESTS
Journal Pre-proof
References
[1] Laurence JZ. A short account of the bearded and hairy female. Lancet 1857; 70:
48.
[2] Sokolov J. (translated from the Russian by M. Ralston). Julia Pastrana and her
Child. Lancet 1862; 79: 467-69.
[3] Stern R. Our bear women, ourselves. Affiliating with Julia Pastrana. In: Tromp M,
editor. Victorian Freaks. The Social Context of Freakery in Britain. Columbus, OH:
Ohio State University Press; 2008. p. 200-33.
[4] Bodeson J. A Cabinet of Medical Curiosities. New York, NY: W.W. Norton &
Company; 1997.
[5] Woolf J. The Wonders: The Extraordinary Performers Who Transformed the
Victorian Age. New York, NY: Pegasus Books; 2019.
[6] Miles AEW. Julia Pastrana: The Bearded Lady. Proc R Soc Med 1974; 67: 8-12.
[7] Bondeson J, Miles AEW. Julia Pastrana, the nondescript: an example of
congenital, generalized hypertrichosis terminals with gingival hyperplasia. Am J Med
Genet 1993; 47: 198–212.
[8] Canún S, Guevara-Sanguinés EG, Elvira-Morales A, Sierra-Romero M de la,
Rodríguez-Asbun H. Hypertrichosis terminalis, gingival hyperplasia, and a
characteristic face: a new distinct entity. Am J Med Genet 2003;116A: 278–83.
[9] Darwin C. The Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication. Vol. 2.
London: John Murray; 1868 (page 328).
[10] Gylseth CH, Toverud LO. Julia Pastrana: The Tragic Story of the Victorian Ape
Woman. Stroud: Sutton Publishing; 2003.
[11] Browne J, Messenger S. Victorian Spectacle: Julia Pastrana, the Bearded and
Hairy Female. Endeavour 2003; 27: 155–59.
[12] Garland-Thomson R. Julia Pastrana, the “extraordinary lady”. Alter 2017; 11: 35-
49.
[13] Anderson Barbata L. The Eye of the Beholder: Julia Pastrana’s Long Journey
Home. Seattle, WA: LuciaǀMarquand; 2017.
[14] Wilson C. An artist finds a dignified end for a ugly story. The New York Times
2013; 11th February. https://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/12/arts/design/julia-pastrana-
who-died-in-1860-to-be-buried-in-mexico.html
[15] Montero MP. El regreso a México de “la mujer más fea del mundo”. Sin
Embargo 2013; 6th February. https://www.sinembargo.mx/06-02-2013/516280
[16] The Guardian. Mexican ‘ape woman’ buried 150 years after her death. The
Guardian 2013; 13th February.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/feb/13/mexican-ape-woman-buried
[17] Squires K, Errickson D, Márquez-Grant N, editors. Ethical Approaches to
Human Remains: A Global Challenges in Bioarchaeology and Forensic
Anthropology. Cham, Switzerland: Springer; 2019.
[18] Mays S. The Archaeology of Human Bones. 2nd Ed. Milton Park: Routledge;
2010.
[19] Roberts CA. Human Remains in Archaeology: A Handbook. York: Council for
British Archaeology Practical Handbook 19; 2009.
[20] Buikstra JE, Gordon CC. The study and restudy of human skeletal series: the
importance of long-term curation. Ann NY Acad Sci 1981; 376: 449-65.
[21] Roberts C, Mays S. Study and Restudy of Curated Skeletal Collections in
Bioarchaeology: A Perspective on the UK and the Implications for Future Curation of
Human Remains. Int J Osteoarchaeol 2011; 21: 626–30.
Journal Pre-proof
[22] Passalacqua NV, Pilloud MA. Ethics and Professionalism in Forensic
Anthropology. San Diego, CA: Academic Press; 2018.
[23] Halling CL, Seidemann RM. The sell skulls online?! A review of internet sales of
human skulls on eBay and the laws in police to restrict sales. J Forensic Sci 2016; 61:
1322-1326.
[24] Gill JR, Rainwater CW, Adams BJ. Santeria and Palo Mayombe: skulls,
mercury, and artifacts. J Forensic Sci 2009; 54: 1458-1462.
[25] Márquez-Grant N, Fibiger L. The Routledge Handbook of Archaeological
Remains and Legislation: An International Guides to Laws and Practice in the
Excavation and Treatment of Archaeological Human Remains. Abingdon, UK:
Routledge; 2011.
[26] Fforde C. Collecting the Dead: Archaeology and the Reburial Issues. London:
Duckworth; 2004.
[27] Lohman J, Goodnow KJ, editors. Human Remains & Museum Practice. Oxford:
Berghahn Books; 2006.
[28] Jenkins T. Contesting Human Remains in Museum Collections: The Crisis of
Cultural Authority. Abingdon: Taylor and Francis; 2010.
[29] Fossheim H, editor. More Than Just Bones: Ethics and Research on Human
Remains. Oslo: The Norwegian National Research Ethics Committee; 2012.
[30] Giesen M, editor. Curating Human Remains: Caring for the Dead in the United
Kingdom. Martlesham: Boydell Press; 2013.
[31] Doyal L, Muinzer T. Should the skeleton of “the Irish Giant” be buried at sea?.”
BMJ 2011; 343: d7597.
[32] Bredekamp J. The politics of human remains: the case of Sarah Bartmann. In
Lohman J, Goodnow KJ, editors. Human Remains & Museum Practice. Oxford:
Berghahn Books; 2006. p. 25-32.
[33] Márquez-Grant, N. The repatriation of Julia Pastrana: scientific and ethical
dilemmas. In L. Anderson Barbata, editor, The Eye of the Beholder: Julia Pastrana’s
Long Journey Home. Seattle, WA: LuciaǀMarquand; 2017: 101-130.
[34] The Norwegian National Research Ethics Committee. Statement concenrning the
remains of Julia Pastrana. http://www.etikkom.no/hvem-er-vi-og-hva-gjor-
vi/komiteenes-arbeid/Uttalelser/Skjelettutvalget/Statement-concerning-the-remains-
of-Julia-Pastrana/ (accessed February 19, 2017)
Journal Pre-proof
Figure
Journal Pre-proof
