Search

In 1992, Norm Sauer called for a language shift in which practitioners would move away from the socially loaded term "race" and replace it with the less provocative term "ancestry." While many heeded the call and moved towards ancestry in their research and reports, the actual approach to research and analysis did not change. In response to this change, there was a large growth in ancestry estimation method development in the early decade of the 2000s. However, the practice of ancestry estimation did not adequately incorporate evolutionary theory in interpretation or trait selection and continued with little critical reflection. In the past decade, there has been an increase in ancestry validation methods with little critique of the "race" concept or discussion of modern human variation or reference samples. To advance, forensic anthropologists need to reckon with the practice of ancestry estimation as it is currently practiced. We are calling for another reform in the axiom focusing on evolutionary theory, population history, trait selection, and population‐level reference samples. The practice needs to abandon the terms ancestry and race completely and recalibrate to an analysis of population affinity. Population affinity is a statistical approach based on the underlying population structure that would allow the understanding of how microevolutionary forces act in concert with historical events (e.g., colonization, the Transatlantic Slave Trade, etc.) to shape modern human variation. This is not to be confused with geographic ancestry that all too often can be perceived as interchangeable with social race and as an affirmation of the biological concept of race. It is time to critically evaluate the social and scientific implications of the current practice of ancestry estimation, and re‐frame our approach to studying and analyzing modern human variation through a population structure approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To understand the implications of the forensic anthropological practice of "ancestry" estimation, we explore terminology that has been employed in forensic anthropological research. The goal is to evaluate how such terms can often circulate within social contexts as a result, which may center forensic anthropologists as constituting "race" itself through analysis and categorization. This research evaluates terminology used in anthropological articles of the Journal of Forensic Sciences between 1972 and 2020 (n = 314). Terminology was placed into two categories: classifiers and descriptors. Classifiers were standardized into one of five options: "race," "ancestry," "population," "ethnic," or "other." Descriptors included terms used to describe individuals within these classificatory systems. We also compared these terms to those in the NamUs database and the U.S. census. Our results found that the terms "ancestry" and "race" are often conflated and "ancestry" largely supplanted "race" in the 1990s without a similar change in research approach. The NamUs and census terminology are not the same as that used in forensic anthropological research; illustrating a disconnect in the terms used to identify the missing, unidentified, and in social contexts with those used in anthropological research. We provide histories of all of these terms and conclude with suggestions for how to use terminology in the future. It is important for forensic anthropologists to be cognizant of the terms they use in medicolegal contexts, publications, and in public and/or professional spaces. The continued use of misrepresentative and improper language further marginalizes groups and perpetuates oppression rooted in systemic racism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The articles in this special issue grew from a symposium at the 2020 American Academy of Forensic Sciences Annual Scientific meeting, with the same title as this introduction. The symposium focused on current research and practice of ancestry estimation in forensic anthropology. The symposium concluded with a discussion of the value (or lack thereof) of ancestry estimation as a standard component of the forensic anthropological biological profile. The articles constituting this volume address these questions: What is the current state of race/ancestry estimation in practice? What terminology should we use to describe patterned variation among human populations? How do we sample contemporary populations, and how long are studies built on such samples applicable? What role does genomic data play? Should race/ancestry remain a core component of the biological profile? Further, the issue includes an examination of ancestry estimation in teaching and community outreach. While fine points are still up for debate among these authors, there is general agreement that any future of ancestry estimation must be based in cultural context and evolutionary theory, be sensitive to the importance of terminology employed, and be iteratively reflexive about the relative costs and benefits of this work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study evaluates population variation of eight cranial morphoscopic traits using samples of known southwest Hispanics ( n = 72), Guatemalans ( n = 106), American Blacks ( n = 146), and American Whites ( n = 218). We applied the support vector machine ( SVM) method to build a prediction model based on a subsample (20%) of the data; the remainder of the data was used as a test sample. The SVM approach effectively differentiated between the four groups with correct classification rates between 72% (Guatemalan group) and 94% (American Black group). However, when the Guatemalan and southwest Hispanic samples were pooled, the same model correctly classified all groups with a higher degree of accuracy (American Black = 96%; American White = 77%; and the pooled Hispanic sample = 91%). This study also identified significant differences between the two Hispanic groups in six of the eight traits using univariate statistical tests. These results speak to the unique population histories of these samples and the current use of the term 'Hispanic' within forensic anthropology. Finally, we argue that the SVM can be used as a classification model for ancestry estimation in a forensic context and as a diagnostic tool may broaden the application of morphoscopic trait data for the assessment of ancestry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As the hardest tissue in the body, teeth have the potential to offer a wealth of biological information to the forensic anthropologist, which can include the assessment of ancestry. Using a large data set of dental measurements, the efficacy of mesiodistal and buccolingual tooth dimensions to discriminate between broad, geographically based groups is explored. A general pattern is identified: African populations have the largest teeth, Asians possess teeth of intermediate size, and Europeans have the smallest teeth. In a discriminant function analysis using crown measurements of all teeth (mandibular and maxillary and excluding the third molar), individuals were correctly classified in 71.3% of cases. When the sex of the individual is known, classification is improved up to 88.1% in females and 71.9% of males (cross-validated). Based on these results, we argue that dental metrics can be regularly employed as part of the development of the biological profile. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]