Uncloaking a Lost Cause: Decolonizing ancestry estimation in the United States

Abstract

Since the professionalization of US-based forensic anthropology in the 1970s, ancestry estimation has been included as a standard part of the biological profile, because practitioners have assumed it necessary to achieve identifications in medicolegal contexts. Simultaneously, forensic anthropologists have not fully considered the racist context of the criminal justice system in the United States related to the treatment of Black, Indigenous, and People of Color; nor have we considered that ancestry estimation might actually hinder identification efforts because of entrenched racial biases.Despite ongoing criticisms from mainstream biological anthropology that ancestry estimation perpetuates race science, forensic anthropologists have continued the practice. Recent years have seen the prolific development of retooled typological approaches with 21st century statistical prowess to include methods for estimating ancestry from cranial morphoscopic traits, despite no evidence that these traits reflect microevolutionary processes or are suitable genetic proxies for population structure; and such approaches have failed to critically evaluate the societal consequences for perpetuating the biological race concept. Around the country, these methods are enculturated in every aspect of the discipline ranging from university classrooms, to the board-certification examination marking the culmination of training, to standard operating procedures adopted by forensic anthropology laboratories.Here, we use critical race theory to interrogate the approaches utilized to estimate ancestry to include a critique of the continued use of morphoscopic traits, and we assert that the practice of ancestry estimation contributes to white supremacy. Based on the lack of scientific support that these traits reflect evolutionary history, and the inability to disentangle skeletal-based ancestry estimates from supporting the biological validity of race, we urge all forensic anthropologists to abolish the practice of ancestry estimation.

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

“…Some forensic anthropology scholars have therefore argued that the practice of ancestry estimation descends directly from a racialized, typological approach to human variation in which the decedents are assigned to categorical races. [4,8,9] Whether ancestry estimation is a racist or racialized endeavor is a critical point of concern that should be voiced, but it is one part of the larger argument that has yet to be adequately articulated. Adding a second piece to this larger discussion, we contend that, as a field, we have disregarded a fundamental issue: that is, for ancestry, what forensic anthropologists say and actually do in both theory and in practice are discordant.…”

“…We hope that this work will not only fill knowledge gaps but also initiate a necessary shift within the field toward the terminology of population affinity and improved approaches for its estimation. The momentum of this moment, when race is at the forefront of both academic and public discourse, has created an opportunity for us to critically evaluate the concept, standard use, and estimation output of "ancestry" and to continue to explore thoughtful, reflexive, and scientifically grounded alternatives [7][8][9][18][19][20][21].…”

“…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].…”

Genes, Race, Ancestry, and Identity in Forensic Anthropology: Historical Perspectives and Contemporary Concerns

“…We will focus here instead on recent conversations about the ethics, social implications, and scientific validity of ancestry estimation in the discipline. DiGangi and Bethard 22 insist on ''decolonizing'' forensic anthropology in part through a critical reflection of how we got to where we are-namely, that we continue to produce ancestry estimates for law enforcement while teaching our students that biological race is a myth and inconsistent with describing real human variation. Engaging in relabeling (''race'' to ''ancestry'') does nothing more than apologetically repackage racial typologies and, dangerously, provide false assurance that decedents can be placed neatly into one category that can be visually and culturally identifiable by others.…”

“…Digangi and Bethard 22 provide a host of useful directives that can be implemented now in forensic casework. They also remind anthropologists that, in the absence of research on the inheritance of ancestry features, the insistence that patterns exist between and among ancestry groups is largely anecdotal.…”