Ancestral Diversity in Skeletal Collections

Abstract

African Americans comprise approximately 13% of the U.S. population, 26% of missing persons, and 51% of homicide victims (Kochanek et al. 2019; National Crime Information Center [NCIC] 2018; U.S. Census Bureau 2010). However, African American remains are underrepresented in the documented skeletal samples resulting from body donations to U.S. taphonomic research facilities. If forensic anthropologists are to rise to the challenge of identifying remains from this segment of the U.S. population, and if heritable differences among human populations are to be distinguished from the embodied differences acquired by marginalized individuals, a deeper understanding of African American skeletal biology is essential. This understanding is contingent on Black donors participating in whole-body donation to anthropological research facilities—participation that may be undermined by a legacy of mistrust between Black communities and the traditionally White-dominated scientific and medical establishments. This review paper synthesizes data from medical research on cadaver and organ donation, as well as anthropological literature on structural violence, embodiment, and the collection and curation of human remains, to present multiple perspectives on increasing African American body donation to anthropological research. We focus on historical, structural, and cultural factors potentially contributing to Black donor reluctance, providing a perspective often lacking in discussions of skeletal curation. We aim to generate debate and discussion within the field of forensic anthropology and among community stakeholders about how skeletal research can better serve Black communities.

Evaluating population affinity estimates in forensic anthropology: Insights from the forensic anthropology database for assessing methods accuracy (FADAMA)

“…Yet, many of the Latina/o/x individuals analyzed in the southwestern United States are not actually “U.S. Hispanic” decedents but rather Latin American migrants who may have population histories—and embodied social histories [6,39]—that render them genetically and morphologically distinct from U.S.‐born Latina/o/x individuals [28]. While the recognition of these groups’ genetic and morphological complexities is a key aspect of our recent disciplinary advancement, the discipline still has work to do: for example, accounting for these micro‐level population differences rather than pooling them into the unitary social ethnicity category of “Hispanic.” Further, the dedicated research focus recently extended to “complex” Latina/o/x populations should also be given to other groups with complex population histories [3].…”

“…Further, rather than relying solely on a three‐group model in which Latina/o/x and Native American individuals are grouped with Asian individuals, we also evaluated ancestry estimation accuracy using a five‐group model. We hypothesized that a more granular approach to ancestry would lead to different accuracy rates than the much‐critiqued “big three” typology [4–6], potentially with the increase in granularity corresponding with a decrease in accuracy.…”

“…We hypothesized that a more granular approach to ancestry would lead to different accuracy rates than the much-critiqued "big three" typology [4][5][6], potentially with the increase in granularity corresponding with a decrease in accuracy.…”

“…Population affinity is perhaps not the end in and of itself, but a means to an end toward which the field of forensic anthropology is still striving. Forensic casework includes disproportionate numbers of decedents who identified as members of non-White social races and other marginalized groups [6,64]. We must ensure that our methods evolve to best reflect the genetically, culturally, and ethnically diverse individuals our casework serves.…”

“…Yet, the practice of estimating a decedent's ancestry descends directly from a racialized, typological approach to human variation [4,5]. This historical background in scientific racism, along with the possibility that assigning decedents to categorical groups inadvertently reifies race [6] and the evidence that in some cases, ancestry estimates provide little novel information toward an identification [7], has motivated scholars to call for a rejection of some or all components of ancestry estimation [4,8,9]. On the contrary, proponents of the practice argue that abandoning ancestry estimation before thoroughly researching the various genetic and environmental contributions to the features and measurements we analyze could undermine our relationships with medicolegal stakeholders and cause our discipline to stagnate [10].…”