Ancestry Studies in Forensic Anthropology: Back on the Frontier of Racism

Abstract

One of the parameters forensic anthropologists have traditionally estimated is ancestry, which is used in the United States as a proxy for social race. Its use is controversial because the biological race concept was debunked by scientists decades ago. However, many forensic anthropologists contend, in part, that because social race categories used by law enforcement can be predicted by cranial variation, ancestry remains a necessary parameter for estimation. Here, we use content analysis of the Journal of Forensic Sciences for the period 2009–2019 to demonstrate the use of various nomenclature and resultant confusion in ancestry estimation studies, and as a mechanism to discuss how forensic anthropologists have eschewed a human variation approach to studying human morphological differences in favor of a simplistic and debunked typological one. Further, we employ modern geometric morphometric and spatial analysis methods on craniofacial coordinate anatomical landmarks from several Latin American samples to test the validity of applying the antiquated tri-continental approach to ancestry (i.e., African, Asian, European). Our results indicate groups are not patterned by the ancestry trifecta. These findings illustrate the benefit and necessity of embracing studies that employ population structure models to better understand human variation and the historical factors that have influenced it.

The Scientific Profiles of Documented Collections via Publication Data: Past, Present, and Future Directions in Forensic Anthropology

“…The highest number of publications and associated datasets comply with the justification that more DCs allow for a better assessment of the population variability; (2) In recent years, research networks have expanded (see Figure 2), with new academics and scientific clusters of research, new references being used, and new scholars seeking individual visibility. The known existence of more DCs and the associated data is an interesting trend to consider when assessing future publications, as it may inform on the impact that population-specific datasets (senso lato) have on scientific research and human variability assessments, and it may support a nonracialized paradigm in the assessment of humans, as suggested by Ross and co-authors [13,14]. The TOP5 most cited papers, and those with the highest altmetric scores of the TOP4 journals, can be found in Table 2.…”

“…Since then, other papers have offered an overview of identified collections (henceforth, "documented collections" (DC)), referring, en passant, to some of the abovementioned limitations, but placing the emphasis on the "why" of building such collections, as well as on their importance for scientific development, with a focus on the understanding of human variability and the production of representative samples [10][11][12]. To address human variability was, and is, to oppose the oversimplification and continental classification of humans, as practiced since the 19th century, thereby promoting a much needed new and non-racialized paradigm in the assessment of humans [13,14]. Aligned with the focus on a variability approach to human diversity is the argument of scientific proficiency.…”

Documented Skeletal Collections and Their Importance in Forensic Anthropology in the United States

“…As noted decades ago by Dwight [45] and Stewart [44], methods in forensic anthropology must consider human variation, and for this reason the emphasis on the study of human remains is distancing itself from racial typology and focusing on human variation [6]. With this in mind, documented collections with known information on age at death, sex, living stature and other variables that allow osteological methods to be developed are being used with a new perspective.…”

“…The Samuel G. Morton Cranial Collection emphasized research on craniology, which was essentially classificatory, with a fixation in racial identification and typology, akin to other European practices of collection creation and use, following the ideas of Johann Blumenbach [2,3]. Although, one is happy to acknowledge that anthropology is slowly moving away from such a classificatory approach to human remains, emphasizing human variation [4][5][6]. Alongside Samuel Morton, other names are associated with the creation of referenced collections, such as Robert J. Terry and William Montague Cobb, amongst others discussed further in this chaptersee [1] and authors therein.…”

Uncovering the hidden history of transpacific contact between Latin America, the Caribbean, and Asia through skeletal population genetics

“…Not only politicians have engaged in recognizing just three populations' contribution to the identity of people in Latin America and the Caribbean, but also academics (L opez, 2019), a problem existing in biological anthropology that needs revision as only contributions from Indigenous, African, and European populations are currently recognized and explored. A recent paper byRoss and Williams (2021) demonstrates the need to pay attention to historic and cultural knowledge of the region to look at population affinity like we have done here, rather than applying an outdated tripartite model of ancestry. Additional sociopolitical and other considerations that affect the interpretation of these data include biases against family formation in immigrants, biased sex ratios (due to an increased number of males), and differential mortality and reproduction, extending across social statuses.…”