Ancestry (forensic applications)

Abstract

Ancestry estimation in forensic anthropology traditionally relied on outdated criteria seemingly never intended to capture the full range of human variability. Instead, the methodological approaches and atheoretical concerns focused almost exclusively on typological aspects of “race” through cranial measurements and extreme trait values of morphological characters supposedly linked explicitly to one population over another. Intimately tied to the old typology of racial classification, the forensic application of ancestry estimation generally focused only on three groups. Craniometric and macromorphoscopic trait analyses now rely on robust classification statistics and a multigroup approach. While many practitioners continue to rely on a three‐group model, recent decline in the acceptance of this model by forensic anthropologists is leading to new research focusing on multigroup classifications and a more refined acknowledgment of the great diversity within and among human groups. Assumptions about the three‐group model's utility in forensic anthropology have consequences for forensic anthropology and ancestry estimation studies. Undetected and/or undocumented differences within and between groups beyond the three‐group model have an important bearing on forensic anthropological research, and, concomitantly, forensic anthropological casework. This manuscript explores the growing body of research on evidence‐based methods with more potential to accurately and precisely estimate ancestry in a biologically meaningful manner.