












































Forensic Anthropology Vol. 5, No. 3: 206–213
DOI: 10.5744/fa.2019.0019a

Introduction

The author secured permission for the investigation of the 
remains attributed to James Alphaeus (also called James the 
Lesser) through a request made to the General Management 
of Historical and Documentary Heritage of the Ministry of 
Culture of the Council of Galicia in 1991. The condition of 
the sacred Relic of the osseous remains required that the 
investigation take place in the Chapel of Relics of the Cathe-
dral, with the permission of the dean, for only ten days. 
Removal of the remains from the cathedral environment to 
carry out complementary examination was not permitted. 
The study was performed in November 1991.

The religious authorities of the Cathedral of Santiago de 
Compostela decided to submit this Relic for scientific study 
to find out what the real contents of the James Alphaeus 
shrine were. The author proposed the most extensive and pro-
found anthropological study of the case considering these 
spatial and temporal limits.

Scientific Study of Religious Relics

Modern scientific study of religious relics is not wide-
spread. Searching in various scientific search engines for 

bibliographic references containing the words “relic AND 
bone” generates only a dozen relevant articles, and doubts 
linger in all of these studies about the identity and authentic-
ity of the remains and the restrictions that Church authori-
ties put in place regarding their investigation (Alterauge et al. 
2016; Ball 2017; van Strydonck et al. 2009).

No documentation exists of any scientific study of rel-
ics in the Santiago de Compostela Cathedral since the end of 
the nineteenth century, when it was established that human 
remains found in the crypt might belong to James the Greater 
(Freijeiro & Pardo 1989).

The identity and/or authenticity of remains is a central 
aspect of every scientific study of a relic or of historic human 
remains, but it is almost impossible to turn to genetic stud-
ies, which can help establish identity (Martínez- González 
2012).

For this reason, the identity and authenticity of an ancient 
religious relic can only be either excluded (if the required 
information exists) or estimated. It is possible that the iden-
tity of the remains belonging to the saint or relevant historic 
personage cannot be confirmed.

The Relic of James Alphaeus

Mauricio Burdino (later the Antipope Gregory VIII) brought 
the head of James Alphaeus, Apostle- Bishop of Jerusalem, 
from that city in 1108 AD. Doña Urraca (Queen of Castilla y 
León in the twelfth century) seized the Relic and gave it to 
Diego Gelmirez, Bishop of Santiago who, as part of a spe-
cial ritual, deposited it in a gold chest in 1116 AD. In 1322, 
Archbishop Don Berenguel de Landoria sent the bust that we 
know today to be carved (Barral 1991). Bishop Diego 
Gelmírez received the head as a symbol of his own personal 

CASE REPORT

A Forensic Anthropological Study of Human Remains  
Attributed to the Apostle James Alphaeus

Fernando Serrullaa,b*

ABSTRACT: We present the forensic anthropological study of the relic of the skull of James Alphaeus, which was preserved in the Chapel 
of the Relics of the Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela (Spain). The remains consist of skull fragments and another few bones, which are in 
a state of carbonization and highly fragmented. The results show that the remains belong to a mature adult male individual, and the injuries to 
the skull were probably produced by a cutting blunt instrument such as a sword. These results lead us to doubt the identity of the remains.

KEYWORDS: forensic anthropology, carbonization, sword, James Alphaeus, James the Lesser, relic

aInstituto de Medicina Legal de Galicia, Unidad de Antropología 
Forense, Hospital de Verin, Verin, Ourense 32600, Spain

bSociedad de Ciencias Aranzadi, Antropología Física, Alto de 
Zorroaga s/n Donostia, San Sebastian 20014, Spain

*Correspondence to: Fernando Serrulla, Instituto de Medicina Legal 
de Galicia, Unidad de Antropología Forense, Hospital de Verin, Verin, 
Ourense 32600, Spain 

E- mail: fernandoserrullarech@hotmail . com

Received 31 May 2019; Revised 04 October 2019;  
Accepted 04 October 2019

© 2022 University of Florida Press



Serrulla 207

triumph, without doubting its attribution to James the Greater 
(Xacopedia 2015).

The Bust- Shrine of James Alphaeus is also called Caput 
Argenteum. It is a silver, gilded bust measuring 48.5 × 48.5 × 
26 cm. It is the most famous of the shrines of “Tesouro 
Compostelano” (Figure 1). It contains primarily cephalic 
osseous remains attributed to James Alphaeus. The work 
(possibly made in 1322) is attributed to Rodrigo Eans, the sil-
versmith of the cathedral (Barral 1991).

Importantly, in 1921, a fire destroyed various relics of 
this chapel. Although it seems that the fire did not directly 
affect this shrine, it is possible that the fire’s heat may have 
indirectly affected the remains due to the metallic composi-
tion of the bust.

The Life and Death of James the Lesser

James Alphaeus was one of Jesus’ apostles and is called the 
“brother of Jesus” in the sacred scriptures. James the Lesser 
occupies ninth place in the four lists of the apostles. Mark 
gave him the name “lesser” to differentiate him from the 
other apostle James, who was the son of Zebedee and John’s 
brother. He was probably younger and smaller than James 
“the Greater.” For this reason, James Alphaeus is also known 
by the name James the Lesser (Hophan 1957). The New Tes-
tament also makes repeated allusions to James as “Jesus’ 
brother.” As Hophan (1957) states, this presents a problem for 
understanding the meaning of the description “brother of 
Jesus” and whether James, brother of the Lord, is the same 
as the apostle James the Lesser, Alphaeus’s son, a dilemma 
that experts on the scriptures have not yet cleared up.1

1. The word “hermanos” has a broader meaning in the ancient and 
modern language of the East, in some ways equivalent to our term 
“cousin.” It refers not only to strict brotherhood, but also to other degrees 
of close kinship like nephews, brothers- in- law, and cousins, and even to 
express an intimate friendship or shared nationality.

According to information recovered by ancient histori-
ans of the Catholic Church (Hegessipus), James Alphaeus 
died in the year 62 AD when he was 92 years old after living 
an ascetic life.

There are three different versions of his death 
(martyrdom):

1)  According to Hegessipus, James Alphaeus was 
pushed from the top of the Temple by the Pharisees 
and then stoned. The same author adds that shortly 
afterwards, a textile worker (batanero) dealt him a 
blow with his stick and smashed James’ head. As a 
result, a stick or cudgel always appears in repre-
sentations of James Alphaeus (de Cesarea 2008).

2)  In this same text by Eusebio de Cesarea, there is a 
second version of James Alphaeus’s death: he was 
thrown down and stoned but also, a textile machine 
worker who was there, “picking up a stick which 
he used to whip the animals, struck Justo’s head and 
with this happy martyrdom ended his days” (de 
Cesarea 2008).

3)  According to Josefo,2 Ananías held a judicial coun-
cil and brought James (Jesus’ brother) and others 
before it, accusing them of violating the law. He was 
sentenced to be stoned (Barclay 1988).

All versions of the manner of James Alphaeus’s death 
seem to coincide with the fact that he possibly died as a con-
sequence of a traumatic brain injury produced by a stick or 
a textile worker’s cudgel, or as a result of the impact of stones 
on his head. Each scenario involves blunt, but not sharp, 
instruments.

The Life and Death of Santiago the Greater

It is also worth highlighting in this historical introduction that 
James the Greater died at the age of 49, decapitated by Herod 
Agrippa I, possibly in the year 44. There are references to the 
death of James the Greater in Acts of the Apostles (12, 1– 3) 
and in other texts in which his death by decapitation with a 
sword is confirmed. This type of death was the customary 
penalty among Jews condemned for idolatry, a crime of 
which James the Greater could have been accused (Castellá 
Ferrer 1610).

Material and Methods

The osseous remains extracted from the Shrine of James 
Alphaeus are presented in Table 1. It shows many bone frag-
ments in a state of complete carbonization and incomplete 

2. Antigüedades de los Judios, 20, 9, 1.

FIG. 1—Reliquary bust of James Alphaeus.



208 Violent Death of the Apostle James Alphaeus

calcination with white impregnations, some of which have 
been reduced to dust.

From a total of 25 identifiable osseous fragments that 
were selected, we created 6 groups based on relationships of 
morphological consistency. The fragments were attached 
using cyanoacrylate. Measurements of the fragments were 
taken with a Vernier caliper. Conventional anthroposcopy 
and anthropometry were performed (Brothwell 1987; Reverte 
Coma 1981, 1991; Rivero de la Calle 1985). Removal of the 
bones from the cathedral in order to undertake complemen-
tary studies (radiological, chemical dating) was not autho-
rized, so we were not able to carry them out.

The methods employed to estimate sex and age were 
chosen according to the material present in the study and, in 
all cases, the recommendations established by the Spanish 
Association of Forensic Anthropology and Odontology (Ser-
rulla 2013).

Results

We explain on one hand the results of the study related to the 
reconstructive identification and on the other hand, the signs 
of trauma and taphonomy found.

Information on Reconstructive Identification

Table 2 shows information of anthropological interest.
Information on reconstructive identification is compat-

ible with a skull belonging to a mature, adult male (esti-
mated age range according to the Meindl- Lovejoy method 
31– 65 years old, median 45.2).

Signs of Trauma Found

In the left frontal zone (pieces 6 and 7), there is an oblique 
section of diploe with structural deformity in the outer table 
consistent with a perimortem injury produced by a cutting 
blunt instrument that may be continuous with the clear bor-
der of the section found in pieces 9, 10, and 11 (Figs. 2– 4). 
It is not possible to evaluate the pattern of the associated 
fracture.

In the interparietal area (posterior sagittal suture area), 
an oblique section of diploe of about 64 mm in length is 
observed, with signs of incomplete calcification. It appears 
to be without signs of osseous regeneration on the edges, 
and it has an accompanying fracture pattern compatible 
with an injury produced by a cutting blunt instruments 
(Figure 3).

TABLE 1—Identifiable osseous pieces found in the interior of the Shrine of James Alphaeus.

Nº Description Maximum Measurements Conservation

1 Frontal orbital margin and squama 114 × 59mm Carbonized
2 Left frontal orbital apophysis 29 × 16 mm Incomplete calcination
3 Frontal frag. Right frontal squama 26 × 18 mm Incomplete calcination
4 Frontal frag. Right frontal scale 50 × 26 mm Incomplete calcination
5 Frontal frag. right frontal scale 19 × 15 mm Incomplete calcination
6 Frontal frag. left frontal scale Long max: 66 mm Carbonized
7 Frontal frag. left frontal scale Long max:10 mm Carbonized
8 Spongy frag. and internal table 12 × 3 mm Incomplete calcination
9 Right parietal frag. Long max: 71 mm Carbonized
10 Right frontal frag. Long max: 90 mm Carbonized
11 Right parietal frag. Long max: 54 mm Carbonized
12 Right parietal frag. Long max: 98 mm Carbonized
13 Interparietal triangular frag. Long max: 51 mm Carbonized
14 Interparietal frag. 47 × 7 mm Incomplete calcination
15 Right parietal frag. Long max: 29 mm Carbonized
16 Interparietal frag. 48 × 34 mm Carbonized
17 Right parieto- occipital frag. 83 × 28 mm Incomplete calcination
18 Left temporal frag. 54 × 33 mm Carbonized
19 Left temporal frag. 64 × 28 mm Carbonized
20 Left mastoid frag. 49 × 29 mm Carbonized
21 Left temporal frag. 21 × 24 mm Carbonized
22 Upper maxillary frag. Anch max: 26 mm Carbonized
23 Left first upper molar (26) L max: 17.3 mm Carbonized
24 Low rib fragment L max: 43 mm Carbonized
25 Upper rib fragment L max: 24 mm Carbonized



Serrulla 209

TABLE 2—Information relevant to anthropology. MD: Mesiodistal; MLDBcrn: Mesio- lingual- distal- buccal crown. The scores assigned to estimate  
the sex are based on the criteria in Ferembach (1980), cited by Krenzer (2006).

Nº Description Information of Interest

1 Frontal orbital margin and scale Glabella (+1), Orbital margin (+1) and frontal bone inclination (+1). (+1): Male.
6 Frontal frag. left frontal scale Perimortem injury by cutting blunt instrument
7 Frontal frag. left frontal scale Perimortem injury by cutting blunt instrument
9 Right parietal frag. Outer coronal suture: significant closure; internal: complete 

Straight line of fracture continuous with 10 and 11.
10 Right frontal fragment Outer coronal suture: significant closure; internal: complete 

Straight line of fracture continuous with 9 and 11.
11 Right parietal fragment Open parieto- temporal D suture. (AGE range: 31– 65 years) (Meindl- Lovejoy 1985) Straight line 

of fracture continuous with 9 and 10.
12 Right parietal frag. Open D parieto- temporal suture.
14 Interparietal frag. Perimortem injury by cutting blunt instrument

Complete closure sagittal suture (S3 and S4) (AGE range: 31– 65 years) (Meindl- Lovejoy 1985)
17 Right parieto- occipital frag. Incipient closure lambdoidal suture (L2 and L3).

(AGE range: 31– 65 years) (Meindl- Lovejoy 1985)
23 Left upper first molar (26) Long MD crown 11 mm Diameter MLDBcrn: 11.3 mm Estimated for the second upper molar: 

Probability: Male:70– 73% Female:26– 29% (Viciano 2012)

FIG. 2—Left frontal bone injury by a cutting blunt instrument. 
Photograph modified through small changes in luminosity, con-
trast and saturation to allow for observation of the injury in the 
carbonized bone.

FIG. 3—Right parietal bone injury produced by cutting blunt instru-
ment. Photograph modified though small changes in luminosity, 
contrast and saturation to allow for observation of the injury in the 
carbonized bone.

FIG. 4—Edge of the coronal suture on the right side.

In the right frontal parietal area, a peculiar alignment of 
the fragments with the left frontal injury is observed. The 
fracture margin of this injury through the diploe is distinctly 
perpendicular. The injury is compatible with a cut produced 
by a cutting blunt instrument (Fig. 4).

Together the three injuries described above are depicted 
in Figure 5, which includes guides indicating the location of 
the injuries in the skull and the frontal and parietal fragments.

Study of Heat Damage

A large part of the frontal bone shows an appearance of 
incomplete calcination both inside and outside of the skull: 



210 Violent Death of the Apostle James Alphaeus

a white, grayish color with some blackish areas. A small solid 
impregnation, whitish in color, is evident in the outer table. 
The fact that the bone has maintained its structure (it is not 
fragile) with an apparently low degree of moisture is notable.

The parietal fragment, in contrast, shows an intense 
black matte color due to carbonization on a large part of its 
surface except in the occipital area. The posterior interpari-
etal border and part of the anterior border with the frontal 
bone show a grayish, white color of incomplete calcination. 
As with the frontal fragment, the bone has maintained its 
structure well and shows a very low degree of moisture.

The other bones (upper jaw, molar, and rib fragments) 
appear completely carbonized without whitish or grayish 
areas.

Discussion of Results

Historical Aspects and Circumstances of Death

From an academic point of view, many authors have criti-
cized the so- called “sacred scripture,” especially the work 

FIG. 5—Group of frontal bone fragments (ectocranial view); B: Group 
of right parietal fragments, where the letter “a” indicates the frontal 
area injury (Figure 4) and the letter “b” the injury described for the 
interparietal area (Figure 3); C: Graphic representing the view from 
above of the combinations of frontal and parietal bone fragments, 
where the letter “A” indicates the cutting blunt frontal injury and 
the letter “B” the cutting blunt interparietal injury (red arrows). 
D: Graphic showing the front view of the frontal and upper maxillary 
bone fragments.

of “ancient historians of the Church” who seem to mix leg-
end, literature, and real events in their writings (Martos 
García 2012). Like other experts (Gunkel 1928), this author 
asserts for example that some scriptural texts like Genesis are 
full of legends, as well as a significant portion of the Bible, 
both the New and Old Testaments. While they are texts of 
enormous cultural and religious importance, the writings of 
Hegessippus, Eusebio de Cesarea, and Flavio Josefo do not 
meet the same scientific and methodological standards in the 
current historical investigation.

As a result, some facts relevant to this investigation can-
not be taken as completely certain, as there could be some 
information that we employ today as antemortem data about 
which— in the scope of the forensic sciences— their veracity 
is usually unquestioned. For instance, it seems logical that 
errors could exist about the age of death and year of birth of 
both James Alphaeus and James the Greater. Errors are pos-
sible even in the manner of their martyrdom: James the 
Lesser possibly died from the textile worker’s stick, and 
James the Greater was probably decapitated by Herod.

The entire journey of James the Lesser’s head could be 
even more inaccurate, starting with the burial site (Jerusa-
lem) to its arrival to the hands of Bishop Gelmírez in Com-
postela in 1116. Many more sources of uncertainty could have 
emerged during the hundreds of years during which the sup-
posed the head of James the Lesser spent in the cathedral. 
The cathedral was invaded on many occasions by pirates and 
thieves and suffered all kinds of attack. In the fourteenth 
century, the cathedral was transformed into a fortress to pro-
tect it from medieval attacks, constructing defensive towers 
such as the Clock Tower (Torre de Reloj) (García Iglesias 
1993).

Biological Profile and Injuries Discovered

The estimation of sex and age in this case is based on very 
few elements: just three characteristics of the frontal bone 
were examined to estimate the sex, and little more than a few 
centimeters of observable cranial sutures for the age. In the 
case of the sex, the molar was also examined, applying mea-
surement criteria estimated from the second molar (Viciano 
2012), with a result favoring the male sex (70– 73%). How-
ever, in regards to the sex, the features examined (glabella, 
supraorbital margin, and frontal bone inclination; the three 
with masculine scores) are characteristics with considerable 
sexual dimorphism (Walrath et al. 2004). Viciano finds that 
there is almost a 30% probability that it is not male, so the 
fact that it was not possible to examine more features implies 
significant uncertainty; this should be considered.

In relation to age, it should be mentioned that the method 
used (Meindl & Lovejoy 1985) has been widely criticized 
for the wide margins of age that it provides for its reliabil-
ity (Ruendigt et al. 2018). In this case, there is even more 



Serrulla 211

uncertainty, given that it has not been possible to evaluate the 
complete state of all the sutures of the cranial vault, the 
base, nor other characteristics of other bones. In any case, it 
seems reasonable to conclude that the skull is that of a 
mature adult individual. According to what is known about 
the individual, the skull may belong to a person more than 
35 years old (Robledo et al. 2013).

This biological profile does not allow us to eliminate 
either James Alphaeus or James the Greater as the person to 
whom this skull may belong. However, the results obtained 
from the study seem more compatible with James the Greater 
than with James Alphaeus.

Few doubts remain about the violent perimortem origin 
of the injuries and the instrument that caused death, partic-
ularly those found in the interparietal and left frontal area. 
We are looking at lesions likely produced by a cutting blunt 
instrument such as a sword (Berg 2008). Many authors have 
characterized the diagnostic aspects of this type of injury 
well: a distinct section of diploe, an associated fracture pat-
tern, and signs of structural deformity on the edge of the 
outer table (Aromatario et al. 2016; Kanz & Grosschmidt 
2006; Petrone et al. 2018).

The position in which the injuries discovered appear is 
notable. On one side the parietal, the fracture pattern indi-
cates that the frontal lesion was anterior to the parietal, as 
the lines of the parietal pattern are not continuous with the 
frontal bone but instead end on the cut line on the right side 
of the frontal bone.

On the other hand, the existence of these two strikes on 
the skull allows us to argue that the case could be related to 
the so- called “death by three strikes” (Reverte Coma 1981) 
in which the condemned prisoner suffered first a hit on the 
side of the head that knocked him unconscious (which in this 
case corresponds to Injury A in Figure 5C), then a second 
strike, once the victim is on the ground, that aims to kill with 
a blow to the back of the head (Injury B in Figure 5C), and 
finally a third strike, decapitation, to assure the prisoner is 
dead. In our case there is only evidence of the first two blows, 
given that it has not been possible to examine the vertebrae 
of the neck.

Agreements and Disagreements: Are the Remains of 
James Alphaeus Authentic?

Death by a cutting blunt instrument accords more with the 
death of James the Greater, who was executed by decapita-
tion in the year 44 AD at the age of 49. We do not have the 
same evidence to support the hypothesis of James Alphae-
us’s death, at the age of 92 in the year 62 AD (compatible 
information), possibly with a worker’s stick or by stoning 
(incompatible information). The results of this study show 
that the osseous remains discovered in the shrine of James 
Alphaeus perhaps do not belong to this saint, if we accept 

as valid the historical information about the manner of his 
death (martyrdom). They could also belong to the James the 
Greater.

Since the arrival of James Alphaeus’s head to Compos-
tela in 1116, the Church, through Bishop Gelmírez, expressed 
doubts about whether it belonged to James the Lesser. 
According to sources, Gelmírez had no doubt that the head 
belonged to James the Greater. Mauricio Burdino, the bishop 
of Braga, who brought the head from the Holy Land, stated 
that the head was that of James the Greater, seemingly to dis-
credit the Compostelan church, which was his rival. The 
Compostelan church preferred not to question whether they 
may have had the entire body of James the Greater. For this 
reason, they attributed it to James the Lesser. When it became 
known that the Cathedral of Ancona (Italy) also claimed to 
have the head of James Alphaeus, more doubts emerged.

In contrast to James Alphaeus, scientific studies exist 
about James the Greater. The historical information relevant 
to the scientific studies performed on the remains attributed 
to James the Greater dates to the end of the nineteenth cen-
tury. A report by three university professors from Santiago 
de Compostela confirmed that they could belong to the Apos-
tle James; since then, there do not seem to be doubts.

Excavations carried out in the Cathedral of Santiago de 
Compostela in 1878– 79 permitted the location of osseous 
remains 30 m deep in the greater chapel behind the altar. 
During the excavation, a Roman mausoleum was found with 
the inscription of the name of one of the disciples to which 
the sacred scripture attributes the transport of James the 
Greater’s body from Jerusalem (Athanasios martyr) (Frei-
jeiro & Pardo 1989). This incident led Pope Leo XIII to 
believe that they could be the remains of the apostle. Through 
Cardinal Payá, he ordered that they be studied by three pro-
fessors from the Universidad de Santiago (Antonio Casares, 
Francisco Freire, and Timoteo Sánchez Freire) who reached 
the following conclusion in an expert ruling made July 20, 
1879, in response to three concrete questions that Church rep-
resentatives posed to them:

1)  The well- known bones belong to three incomplete 
skeletons of as many individuals, of different devel-
opment and age: of these, those of the first two 
passed away between the end of the second and 
the middle of the third physiological stage of life; 
while the third skeleton seems also to have been in 
this third stage.

2)  It is not possible to state with certainty the age of 
the bones; but considering the state of their integ-
rity and composition, which is so similar to that of 
a Celtic skeleton mentioned, they are centuries old.

3)  Regarding the age, it seems logical that the bones 
may have belonged to the bodies of the Holy Apos-
tle and his two disciples.



212 Violent Death of the Apostle James Alphaeus

The current assessment of these conclusions allows us 
to argue the following:

1)  As a result of the age assessment undertaken and 
considering the life expectancy at the end of the 
nineteenth century in Galicia, during the last third 
of the nineteenth century (45 years according to 
Muñoz Pradas [2005]), the experts did not include 
the age of James the Greater in any of the three 
thirds that they discuss. However, we cannot 
exclude it solely based on the age assessment that 
we carried out. Nothing is mentioned about the sex 
of the individuals, which is notable because 
during that period Physical Anthropology in Spain 
was only beginning to be established in university 
environments (Reverte 1991).

2)  It is possible that the bones may be ancient not only 
for the reasons presented, but rather mainly because 
of the archaeological context in which they were 
discovered (close to a Roman mausoleum).

3)  The phrase in which the remains are arbitrarily 
attributed to the apostle and his disciples does not 
seem to have much scientific basis. It may be fool-
ish to attribute the remains to these persons solely 
because of a hypothetical age compatibility and for 
the non- specific estimated postmortem interval 
(“centuries of existence”). Currently no profes-
sional would allow an identity estimation based on 
this information.

Taphonomic Aspects

Regarding the study of the heat damage we should add that 
in accordance with the experimental studies of bone crema-
tion and other studies, we now understand how bone behaves 
when it is affected by heat, according to temperature (Devlin 
& Herrman 2008; Holck 1996; Symes et al. 2015; Walker 
et al. 2008).

In their studies, these authors show the different changes 
in coloration that bone undergoes at different temperatures. 
It is important to consider this in these experimental studies 
so that the authors do not create the exact conditions in which 
the examined bones were burned in this case. In the case of 
the remains attributed to James Alphaeus, the dry bone was 
stored in a metal container, meaning the bone was affected 
only by the heat of the oven effect produced by the container, 
not burned by the oven directly.

Although these conditions were not reproduced in the 
studies mentioned, in general there seems to be agree-
ment that the carbonization of the bone (black matte color) 
occurred at around 600°C, while the calcination (gray whit-
ish color) was obtained at 800°C, during a period of at least 
30 minutes.

It is also interesting to highlight in this section that two 
different types of fracture patterns of the skull bone are evi-
dent in the few fragments examined:

a)  In the right parietal fragment there is a pattern of 
fracture characteristic of cutting blunt perimor-
tem injuries, with primary and secondary lines of 
fracture derived from the depletion of energy in the 
tomb (Pope & Smith 2004; Symes et al. 2015).

b)  In the frontal fragment (above the orbits) there are 
disorganized fractures without a clear pattern and 
evidence of delamination of the outer table, signs 
of postmortem injuries produced by heat (Pope & 
Smith 2004; Symes et al. 2015). Along with the 
frontal bone injuries compatible with those pro-
duced by a cutting blunt instrument, not enough 
bone was preserved to evaluate its fracture pattern.

As such we can confirm that the parietal and frontal inju-
ries produced by a cutting blunt instrument are clearly peri-
mortem and not the result of the taphonomic effect of heat.

Conclusions

The fragments of bone discovered in the shrine of James 
Alphaeus possibly belong to a mature adult, male individual 
older than 35 years of age. The examined remains show signs 
of perimortem injuries produced by a cutting blunt instru-
ment like a sword. The injury to the frontal bone was pro-
duced before the parietal lesion and was possibly the result 
of an execution, the so- called “death by three strikes” in 
which the third strike (though not present in this case) was 
cutting off the head.

The signs of trauma found in the skull bones show signs 
of decapitation. From this we can deduce two hypotheses, if 
we accept the martyrdom described by historians of the Cath-
olic Church and scriptures:

1) That the remains do not belong to James Alphaeus.
2) That the skull may belong to James the Greater.

The examined skull is incomplete, very fragmented, and 
shows significant structural damage caused by heat. It is esti-
mated that it could have been subjected to temperatures 
between 600 and 800°C.

References

Alterauge A, Becker T, Berndt B, Jackowski C, Losch S. Testing 
“saintly” authenticity: Investigations on two catacomb saints. 
Radiographics 2016;36(2):573– 579.



Serrulla 213

Aromatario M, Cappelletti S, Bottoni E, Fiore PA, Ciallella C. 
Weapon identification using antemortem CT with 3D recon-
struction, is it always possible?— A report in a case of facial 
blunt and sharp injuries using an ashtray. Legal Medicine 
2016;18:1– 6.

Ball P. Material witness: Is this holy relic preserved? Nature Mate-
rials 2017;16(5):503.

Barclay W. Los hombres del Maestro. Bilbao: Desclée de Brouwer; 
1988.

Barral A. Busto- relicario de Santiago Alfeo. Rodrigo Eans 1322? 
In: Galicia No Tempo: Monasterio de San Martíno Pinario. 
Santiago de Compostela: Xunta de Galicia; 1991.

Berg GE. Probable machete trauma from the Cambodian Killing 
Fields. In: Kimmerle EH, Baraybar JP, eds. Skeletal Trauma: 
Identification of Injuries Resulting from Human Rights Abuse 
and Armed Conflict. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2008: 
314– 319.

Brothwell DR. Desenterrando huesos: La excavación, tratamiento 
y estudio de restos del esqueleto humano. Mexico City: Fondo 
de Cultura Económica; 1987.

Castellá Ferrer M. Historia del apostol de Iesus Christo Sanctiago 
Zebedeo, patron y capitan general de las Españas. Madrid: 
En la oficina de Alonso Martin de Balboa; 1610.

Devlin JB, Herrmann NP. Bone color as an interpretive tool of the 
depositional history of archaeological cremains. In: Schmidt 
CW, Symes SA, eds. The Analysis of Burned Human Remains. 
London: Academic Press; 2008:109– 128.

de Cesarea E. Historia Eclesiástica. La formación de la Iglesia 
desde el siglo I hasta el siglo III. Barcelona: Editorial Clie; 
2008.

Ferembach D, Schwidetzky I & M Stoukal. Recommendations for 
age and sex diagnoses of skeletons. Journal of Human Evolu-
tion 1980:9:517– 549.

Freijeiro AB, Pardo IMG. Hallazgo en el mausoleo del Apóstol San-
tiago del título sepulcral griego de su discípulo San Atanasio. 
Boletín de la Real Academia de la Historia 1989;186(2): 
209– 220.

García Iglesias, XM. La Catedral de Santiago de Compostela. 
A Coruña, Spain: Xuntanza Editorial; 1993.

Gunkel H. What Remains of the Old Testament: And Other Essays. 
New York: George Allen & Unwin; 1928

Holck P. Cremated Bones: A Medical- Anthropological Study of an 
Archaeological Material on Cremation Burials. 2nd ed. Oslo, 
Norway: Anatomical Institute, University of Oslo; 1996.

Hophan O. Los Apóstoles. Barcelona: Editorial Litúrgica Española; 
1957.

Kanz F, Grossschmidt K. Head injuries of Roman gladiators. 
Forensic Science International 2006:;160(2– 3):207– 16.

Krenzer U. Compendio de Métodos Antropológico Forenses ara la 
Reconstrucción del Perfil Osteobiológico: Tomo II Métodos 
para la Determinación del Sexo. Guatemala: Centro de Análi-
sis Forense y Ciencias Aplicadas; 2006.

López Ferreiro A. Historia de la Santa A. M. Iglesia de Santiago 
de Compostela. Santiago: Impresión y encuadernación del 
Seminario Conciliar Central; 1898. Tomos III, VI y VII.

Martínez- González LJ, Martínez- Espín E, Álvarez JC, Albardaner 
F, Rickards O, Martínez- Labarga C, Calafell F, Lorente JA. 
Surname and Y chromosome in Southern Europe: A case 
study with Colom/Colombo. European Journal of Human 
Genetics 2012;20(2):211– 216.

Martos García AE. El método de la historia de las formas: Hermann 
Gunkel y las leyendas de la “Biblia”. Tejuelo 2012;13:48– 69.

Meindl RS, Lovejoy CO. Ectocranial suture closure: A revised 
method for the determination of skeletal age at death based on 
the lateral- anterior sutures. American Journal Physical Anthro-
pology 1985;68(1):57– 66.

Muñoz Pradas F. Geografía de la mortalidad española del siglo 
XIX: Una exploración de sus factores determinantes. Boletin 
de la Associación de Geógrafos Españoles 2005;40:269– 310.

Petrone P, Brunetti A, Niola M, Di Lorenzo P, Borrelli L, Buccelli 
C, Graziano V. To kill or be killed: The coup de grâce for a 
warrior after multiple sword wounds. Anthropologischer Anzei-
ger 2018;75(4):311– 323.

Pope EJ, Smith OC. Identification of traumatic injury in burned cra-
nial bone: An experimental approach. Journal of Forensic 
Science 2004;49(3):431– 440.

Reverte Coma JM. Antropología Médica I. Madrid: Editorial 
Rueda; 1981

Reverte Coma JM. Antropología Forense. Madrid: Ministerio de 
Justicia; 1991.

Rivero de la Calle M. Nociones de Anatomía Humana aplicadas a 
la Arqueología. Ciudad de la Habana: Editorial Cientifico- 
Técnica; 1985.

Robledo MM, Sánchez JA, Fernandez JJ. Estimación de la Edad. 
In: Serrulla F, coord. Recomendaciones en Antropología 
Forense. Asociación Española de Antropología y Odontología 
Forense (AEAOF); 2013: 73– 81. http:// www . aeaof . com / web 
/ blog / recomendaciones - en - antropologia - forense - aeaof - 2013 
. pdf.

Ruengdit S, Prasitwattanaseree S, Mekjaidee K, Sinthubua A, 
Mahakkanukrauh P. Age estimation approaches using cranial 
suture closure: A validation study on a Thai population. Jour-
nal of Forensic Legal Medicine. 2018;53:79– 86

Serrulla F, coord. Recomendaciones en Antropología Forense. Aso-
ciación Española de Antropología y Odontología Forense 
(AEAOF); 2013. http:// www . aeaof . com / web / blog / recom enda 
ciones - en - antropologia - forense - aeaof - 2013 . pdf.

Symes SA, Rainwater CW, Chapman EN, Gipson DR, Piper AL. 
Patterned thermal destruction in a forensic setting. In: Schmidt 
CW, Symes SA, eds. The Analysis of Burned Human Remains. 
London: Academic Press; 2015:17– 59.

van Strydonck M, Ervynck A, Vandenbruaene M, Boudain M. 
Anthropology and 14C analysis of skeletal remains from relic 
shrines: An unexpected source of information for medieval 
archaeology. Radiocarbon 2009;51(2):569– 577.

Viciano J. Métodos Odontométricos para la Estimación del Sexo 
en Individuos Adultos y Subadultos [doctoral thesis]. Granada: 
Universidad de Granada; 2012. https:// hera . ugr . es / tesisugr 
/ 21453512 . pdf. Accessed April 21, 2019).

Walker PL, Miller KWP, Richman R. Time temperature, and oxygen 
availability: An experimental study of the effects of environ-
mental conditions on the color and organic content of cremated 
bone. In: Schmidt CW, Symes SA, eds. The Analysis of Burned 
Human Remains. London: Academic Press; 2008:129– 135.

Walrath DE, Turner P. Bruzek J. Reliability test of the visual assess-
ment of cranial traits for sex determination. American Jour-
nal of Physical Anthropology 2004;125:132– 137.

Xacopedia. Santiago el Menor. Ediciones Bolanda. Xunta de Gali-
cia. http:// xacopedia . com / Santiago_el_Menor. Created 2015. 
Accessed April 17, 2019.


