Changing the Landscape of Identity in Forensic Anthropology

Abstract

1 SNA International supporting the Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency, Joint Base Pearl Harbor, Hickam, Hawaii, USA. 2 Humanities and Sciences Interdepartmental Programs, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA. *Correspondence to: Briana T. New, SNA International supporting the Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency, 590 Moffet St., Joint Base Pearl Harbor, Hickam, HI 96853 USA. E-mail: btrnew@gmail.com. KEY WORDS: forensic anthropology, identity, casework, multidisciplinary. Human Biology, Winter 2021, v. 93, no. 1. doi: 10.13110/humanbiology.93.1.04. Copyright © 2021 Wayne State University Press, Detroit, Michigan 48201 Changing the Landscape of Identity in Forensic Anthropology Briana T. New1 * and Bridget F. B. Algee-Hewitt2 The articles that comprise this special issue, “Changing the Landscape of Identity in Forensic Anthropology,” grew from a symposium titled “ExpandingBoundaries :EmbracingtheIntersectionality of Forensic Anthropology to Account for the Changing Landscape of Identity in Current Casework .”These papers were intended to be presented at the 2020 meeting of the American Association of PhysicalAnthropologists(nowtheAmericanAssociation of Biological Anthropologists). However, whentheCOVID-19pandemicnecessitatedcanceling the conference, we offered the opportunity for researchers to expand their intended presentations . We are grateful that, despite the events that changed many of our personal and professional lives over the last few years, many symposium participants transformed their contributions into the rich body of research presented here. This two-part special issue focuses on the expanded potential of forensic anthropological research as the discipline continues to develop multidisciplinary approaches for understanding identity, incorporating new sources of information andnewmethodologies,andleveragingpreexisting approaches in new ways. The research showcased here uses diverse data and forward-thinking applications—historical, demographic, dental, skeletal, and genomic—to tackle the complexities of identity in forensic casework. These studies engage critically with parameters of the biological profile from many different perspectives but with shared concern for practical applications within the field. Operating in the context of this theme, all of the contributions highlight the need for a renewed dialogue in the field. Kenyhercz, Konigsberg et al., and Spake et al. problematize the straightforward adoption of prevailing methodologies through their presentations of advanced theory. They demonstrate risks of methodological misuse and misidentificationthatresultfromuncriticalacceptance of standard practice. Kenyhercz challenges the ancestry estimation methodology used by forensic anthropologists for decades by providing anexploratorymethodologyof unsupervisedlearning techniques, an approach that does not require a priori group selection or assumptions when comparing an individual against different groups. Indoingso,theauthorconteststhenormsof analysis , encouraging practitioners to broaden their perspectives on what it means to assess human variation at the level of the individual or group. Konigsberg et al., in surfacing procedural fallacies, underscore the sobering reality of the real human consequences in poor methodology. Asking us to rethink our role as experts in the production and acceptance of forensic evidence, the authors analyzetheconsistencyindevelopmentof thefirstand secondmandibularmolarsforpredictingminimum age thresholds.They thus demonstrate the bounds of juvenile age estimation within this context and assert that use of biological markers for minimum age of criminal responsibility is not reliable. Spake et al. explore the potential of incorporating into the forensic tool kit formulas that estimate body mass for use on modern juvenile remains. Their Changing the Landscape of Identity in Forensic Anthropology New and Algee-Hewitt 000 ■ New and Algee-Hewitt and approaches to race and ancestry within biological anthropology. Through this research, the authors provide a variety of recommendations to address discordances their survey identified in teaching modes, research techniques, and public engagementstrategies,fromthelanguageusedand how our discussions are structured to the modernization of communication methodologies. Taylor et al. deliver case discussions that, while learning tools themselves, drive home a bigger message that forensic casework should be first informed by the fundamentals of “doing” anthropology. In this light, they encourage readers to reevaluate how we reconcile discordant lines of evidence and to embrace how the often-muddied waters of culture can bring unexpected clarity to our understanding of biology. Their research addresses the complexities and possible inconsistences across different lines of biological, social, and material evidencethatmustbeaddressedforidentifications to move forward. Furthermore, the authors show how mobilizing social theory in casework and case building can help contextualize or ground fluid social identities through time. This article advocates for a holistic biosocial anthropological approach to identity building, arguing that it is necessary for facilitating forensic identifications not just...