Thomas Bewick-His
Mark
C. SAMS
Durham County Constabulary, Aykley Heads, Durham, England Four of Bewick'sjngerprint engravings were examined with a view to determining fi they shed any light on whether he appreciated the individual character ofjngerprint and their value for ident$catio purposes. Engravings of fingerprints by Thomas Bewick (1753-1828) are reproduced in a number of fingerprint books. These books usually devote a few paragraphs accrediting him with an understanding of the formation of fingerprint patterns and ridge characteristics, e.g. Cummins and Midlo (1961) say "The engravings demonstrate familiarity with the construction of skin patterns, including the details of branching and interruption of the skin ridges . . . Bewick possibly understood the individuality of fingerprints, though neither the marks themselves nor his custom of using them proves it". Cummins and Midlo further state "Bewick made wood engravings of patterns of his own fingers" (my italics). I t was pointed out to me by Kind (private communication) that if the engravings were of Bewick's own fingerprints then this, together with the fact that Bewick used a fingerprint engraving to stamp receipts (Figure 2), would be evidence that he appreciated the individual character of fingerprints and their value in identification. Kind suggested that I examine the Bewick collection with a view possibly to finding a moulded finger impression on wax or other suitable substance in Bewick's toolbox and to compare such impressions with the engravings. Failing this he suggested a n expert examination of the engravings themselves might shed some light on whether they are engravings of actual fingerprints or fabrications of fingerprints based on his observations of ridge characteristics and patterns. During Bewick's lifetime engraved wood blocks were used as a traditional method of producing illustrations in books. Bewick, a native of Newcastleupon-Tyne, carved his engravings on the end-grain of the wood whilst previous exponents of the art used the side-grain of the wood. The latter method produced a stark effect in the finished print compared with Bewick's blocks which could produce 100,000 prints of excellent clarity, detail and perspective. The Bewick collection of books, prints and engravings is in the safe custody of the City Library a t Newcastle and is well worth viewing. With the kind permission of Mr. A. Wallace, City Librarian, we were able to photograph four illustrations of engraved fingerprints (Figures 1 to 5). Bewick's toolbox, which he used to make his engravings, forms part of the City Library's collection and this was examined with a view to finding his moulded finger impression in wax or other suitable substances which he would be likely to use. Unfortunately, no such impressions were found. The basis of any supposition therefore must be made from the information to be obtained from the actual engravings of the fingerprints. My examination of the engravings shows : ( a ) The number of characteristics in Bewick's prints is comparable with those likely to be found in genuine prints. ( 6 ) The arrangement of the characteristics in the prints is, as far as one can determine, consistent with that which could be expected in a genuine print. However the arrangement of the characteristics above the core in Figure 1 looks peculiar. One would expect the characteristics to have a
Figure 2 . A receipt signed by Bewick showing a fingerprint engraving.
trend in one direction and not, as Bewick shows them, in both directions. ( c ) A count of the number of different characteristics shows a preponderance of bifurcations in two -of.the prints. The tendency in genuine prints is for . .. a larger proportion of-ridge endings. ( d ) The most unusual feature disclosed in Figure 1 is the characteristic which can be best described as a "loop", or the convergence and joining of two ridge endings. This characteristic appears at least five times in this print and would tend to the conclusion that this is either a very unusual print or the characteristic is an invention of Bewick's. ( e ) The distance between the ridges in Figure 1 is greater than the distances between the ridges in the other engravings. This might support the opinion that the prints of different persons were used for the engravings.
Figure 3. Fingerprint engraving by Bewick with same legend as that shown in Figure 2. Note, however, that the print differs from that in Figure 2. Note also the presence of a finely inscribed cross.
Figure 4. Enlargement of fingerprint engraving shown in Figure 2.
(f) The inclusion of pores and subsidiary ridges in the prints show the keen
observation and attention to detail displayed by Bewick. Readers may care to examine the figures to see if they can shed any further light on the problem and to consider, for example, if the addition of the engraved cross in Figure 4 might be considered, as has been suggested, a deliberately added identification character. If this be so, does this in itself prove the point under question? Whatever conclusions one may wish to draw from these observations, the fact remains that the excellence of Bewick's work is indisputable.
Acknowledgements I wish to thank Mr. S. S. Kind for the original suggestion which led to this work and for subsequent discussions and assistance in the preparation of this article. I also wish to thank Mr. A. Wallace for his helpful advice and for allowing access to the Bewick collection. Reference CUMMINS, H. and MIDLO,C., 1961, Fingerprints, Palms and Soles, New York, Dover Publications.
Figure 5. Fingerprint engraving by Bewick in book illustration.
Mark
C. SAMS
Durham County Constabulary, Aykley Heads, Durham, England Four of Bewick'sjngerprint engravings were examined with a view to determining fi they shed any light on whether he appreciated the individual character ofjngerprint and their value for ident$catio purposes. Engravings of fingerprints by Thomas Bewick (1753-1828) are reproduced in a number of fingerprint books. These books usually devote a few paragraphs accrediting him with an understanding of the formation of fingerprint patterns and ridge characteristics, e.g. Cummins and Midlo (1961) say "The engravings demonstrate familiarity with the construction of skin patterns, including the details of branching and interruption of the skin ridges . . . Bewick possibly understood the individuality of fingerprints, though neither the marks themselves nor his custom of using them proves it". Cummins and Midlo further state "Bewick made wood engravings of patterns of his own fingers" (my italics). I t was pointed out to me by Kind (private communication) that if the engravings were of Bewick's own fingerprints then this, together with the fact that Bewick used a fingerprint engraving to stamp receipts (Figure 2), would be evidence that he appreciated the individual character of fingerprints and their value in identification. Kind suggested that I examine the Bewick collection with a view possibly to finding a moulded finger impression on wax or other suitable substance in Bewick's toolbox and to compare such impressions with the engravings. Failing this he suggested a n expert examination of the engravings themselves might shed some light on whether they are engravings of actual fingerprints or fabrications of fingerprints based on his observations of ridge characteristics and patterns. During Bewick's lifetime engraved wood blocks were used as a traditional method of producing illustrations in books. Bewick, a native of Newcastleupon-Tyne, carved his engravings on the end-grain of the wood whilst previous exponents of the art used the side-grain of the wood. The latter method produced a stark effect in the finished print compared with Bewick's blocks which could produce 100,000 prints of excellent clarity, detail and perspective. The Bewick collection of books, prints and engravings is in the safe custody of the City Library a t Newcastle and is well worth viewing. With the kind permission of Mr. A. Wallace, City Librarian, we were able to photograph four illustrations of engraved fingerprints (Figures 1 to 5). Bewick's toolbox, which he used to make his engravings, forms part of the City Library's collection and this was examined with a view to finding his moulded finger impression in wax or other suitable substances which he would be likely to use. Unfortunately, no such impressions were found. The basis of any supposition therefore must be made from the information to be obtained from the actual engravings of the fingerprints. My examination of the engravings shows : ( a ) The number of characteristics in Bewick's prints is comparable with those likely to be found in genuine prints. ( 6 ) The arrangement of the characteristics in the prints is, as far as one can determine, consistent with that which could be expected in a genuine print. However the arrangement of the characteristics above the core in Figure 1 looks peculiar. One would expect the characteristics to have a
Figure 2 . A receipt signed by Bewick showing a fingerprint engraving.
trend in one direction and not, as Bewick shows them, in both directions. ( c ) A count of the number of different characteristics shows a preponderance of bifurcations in two -of.the prints. The tendency in genuine prints is for . .. a larger proportion of-ridge endings. ( d ) The most unusual feature disclosed in Figure 1 is the characteristic which can be best described as a "loop", or the convergence and joining of two ridge endings. This characteristic appears at least five times in this print and would tend to the conclusion that this is either a very unusual print or the characteristic is an invention of Bewick's. ( e ) The distance between the ridges in Figure 1 is greater than the distances between the ridges in the other engravings. This might support the opinion that the prints of different persons were used for the engravings.
Figure 3. Fingerprint engraving by Bewick with same legend as that shown in Figure 2. Note, however, that the print differs from that in Figure 2. Note also the presence of a finely inscribed cross.
Figure 4. Enlargement of fingerprint engraving shown in Figure 2.
(f) The inclusion of pores and subsidiary ridges in the prints show the keen
observation and attention to detail displayed by Bewick. Readers may care to examine the figures to see if they can shed any further light on the problem and to consider, for example, if the addition of the engraved cross in Figure 4 might be considered, as has been suggested, a deliberately added identification character. If this be so, does this in itself prove the point under question? Whatever conclusions one may wish to draw from these observations, the fact remains that the excellence of Bewick's work is indisputable.
Acknowledgements I wish to thank Mr. S. S. Kind for the original suggestion which led to this work and for subsequent discussions and assistance in the preparation of this article. I also wish to thank Mr. A. Wallace for his helpful advice and for allowing access to the Bewick collection. Reference CUMMINS, H. and MIDLO,C., 1961, Fingerprints, Palms and Soles, New York, Dover Publications.
Figure 5. Fingerprint engraving by Bewick in book illustration.
