Recent discussions have revolved around the concept of ancestry and ancestry estimation; however, the associated terminology and its theoretical underpinnings have not been similarly examined. This research evaluates the concepts (e.g., race, ancestry, ethnicity) currently in use, examines if they are consistent with the groups employed to illustrate them (e.g., Black, European, Hispanic), and looks for patterns in language usage. Articles in the Anthropology, Odontology, and General sections of the Journal of Forensic Sciences between 2009 and 2019 were evaluated for ancestryrelated language use. For each article, the concepts, examples, and bibliographic information were recorded, and the relationship between concept and example was examined. These data were cross-tabulated to evaluate relationships between the variables. Cramer's V was used to assess the strength of association of these relationships. In this sample, ancestry predominates, especially recently The concept used is significantly associated with all variables except publication date and authors' institution(s). Despite the prevalence of the ancestry concept, racially based terms for individual groups were common. The use of ancestry, over race, in forensic contexts has been suggested to be a primarily linguistic change; these results may support that assertion. Inconsistent language usage leads to a lack of clarity in meaning among researchers and misinterpretation of the data. It is critical to recognize that inconsistencies exist, but also to understand why they exist. These results underscore the long overdue need for the inclusion of diverse perspectives in forensic anthropology, especially in the current conversations surrounding ancestry and ancestry estimation.

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.