ApostateAbe
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2002
- Messages
- 1,299
- Location
- Colorado, USA
- Basic Beliefs
- Infotheist. I believe the gods to be mere information.
There is a popular myth that there is academic consensus on the point that race does not biologically exist. In truth, academia is split, and one major fault line is largely along a division between fields of research where the concept of human races can and is practically applied (forensic anthropologists, medical doctors, intelligence researchers, population geneticists) and the fields where all your work can be done while sitting in a chair. The American sit-in-a-chair scientists have largely convinced the remainder of American academia and the public of their pseudoscience, but disagreement can hardly be starker among forensic anthropologists, as identification of races from bone remnants is an everyday core part of their work.
The following two excerpts are an introductory education about the biology of race from the perspective of forensic anthropologists, from the book by Pickering and Bachman (ed) titled, "The Use of Forensic Anthropology," Second Edition, 2010. The second excerpt is the chapter about race written by the renowned forensic anthropologist George W. Gill. I also supply Table 5 of page 107 (similar to Table 1). Throughout the text, the political tension with those people who have accepted the pseudoscience of race denial (their social-scientist colleagues and their own students) jumps out of the writing.
Pages 82-84:
Pages 103-111:
The following two excerpts are an introductory education about the biology of race from the perspective of forensic anthropologists, from the book by Pickering and Bachman (ed) titled, "The Use of Forensic Anthropology," Second Edition, 2010. The second excerpt is the chapter about race written by the renowned forensic anthropologist George W. Gill. I also supply Table 5 of page 107 (similar to Table 1). Throughout the text, the political tension with those people who have accepted the pseudoscience of race denial (their social-scientist colleagues and their own students) jumps out of the writing.
Pages 82-84:
Question 6: What Is the Race, Ethnicity, or Cultural Affiliation?
Race is both a cultural and a biological term. For more than a century, scientists and philosophers have tried to define race and describe races. Some scientists define only three races: caucasoid, mongoloid, and negroid, while other scientists have defined more than 10. In our current climate of multicultural sensitivity, some scholars, not forensic anthropologists, suggest that race does not exist, or at least it should not be talked about.
The dictionary gives several definitions for race. One definition is a local human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics. A second definition is any group of people united or classified together on the basis of a common history, nationality, or geographic distribution. In this definition, common history, religion, and other cultural characteristics supersede genetics. In any case, through out the history of humanity there have been genetic patterns that vary in time and place. Even if one accepts the categorization defined by “race,” there probably never was any such thing as a “pure” race. Wherever humans have gone, they have managed to successfully interbreed with any other group of humans encountered. Today, the ease of travel means that there are more people moving around the globe, creating greater genetic mixing opportunities than ever before.
From the forensic perspective, using the “three-race” model still has some value in describing broad genetic and morphological characteristics. This model is used by many people to describe themselves and others. Therefore, it falls to the forensic investigator to use the term defined by the model in trying to identify the dead. The model is not perfect, but it does help us understand some of the variation in shape and form on some parts of the skeleton, particularly the skull.
For the forensic anthropologist, determining race using the skull means looking at the shapes and relative sizes of some of the bones that form the facial features and some characteristics that contribute to the overall size and shape of the skull. Table 1 gives some of the characteristics used by anthropologists. However, every forensic anthropologist who has experience with skulls knows there are exceptions to this model. It is important to recognize that of all of the major biological variables, this one is perhaps the most difficult and easiest to misidentify. For this reason, your consulting anthropologist may not always be able to determine the race.
Race is both a cultural and a biological term. For more than a century, scientists and philosophers have tried to define race and describe races. Some scientists define only three races: caucasoid, mongoloid, and negroid, while other scientists have defined more than 10. In our current climate of multicultural sensitivity, some scholars, not forensic anthropologists, suggest that race does not exist, or at least it should not be talked about.
The dictionary gives several definitions for race. One definition is a local human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics. A second definition is any group of people united or classified together on the basis of a common history, nationality, or geographic distribution. In this definition, common history, religion, and other cultural characteristics supersede genetics. In any case, through out the history of humanity there have been genetic patterns that vary in time and place. Even if one accepts the categorization defined by “race,” there probably never was any such thing as a “pure” race. Wherever humans have gone, they have managed to successfully interbreed with any other group of humans encountered. Today, the ease of travel means that there are more people moving around the globe, creating greater genetic mixing opportunities than ever before.
From the forensic perspective, using the “three-race” model still has some value in describing broad genetic and morphological characteristics. This model is used by many people to describe themselves and others. Therefore, it falls to the forensic investigator to use the term defined by the model in trying to identify the dead. The model is not perfect, but it does help us understand some of the variation in shape and form on some parts of the skeleton, particularly the skull.
For the forensic anthropologist, determining race using the skull means looking at the shapes and relative sizes of some of the bones that form the facial features and some characteristics that contribute to the overall size and shape of the skull. Table 1 gives some of the characteristics used by anthropologists. However, every forensic anthropologist who has experience with skulls knows there are exceptions to this model. It is important to recognize that of all of the major biological variables, this one is perhaps the most difficult and easiest to misidentify. For this reason, your consulting anthropologist may not always be able to determine the race.
Pages 103-111:
Assessing Ancestry (Race) from the Skeleton
Chapter 6
George W. Gill
The determination of ancestry (race) from human remains, as mentioned briefly in the preceding chapter, is a very important step in the identification process. Whether the decedent is a Native American, a white, or a black is important information to know in order to begin the process of screening missing persons’ records. Just as determination of age, sex, and living stature can help narrow the number of records, so does knowledge of the major human population to which the decedent belongs. In fact, traditionally the four “pillars” of the skeletal identification process have always been the determination of sex, race, age, and stature.
For two reasons this separate chapter on assessing ancestry has been created, apart from the coverage of sex, age, and stature mentioned in the last chapter. First, establishing ancestry from bones, and other remains, is a more subtle and difficult process than determining, for instance, sex. Sex is a discrete, clear-cut condition in nature (either male or female) while populations and races follow a gradual gradient from one to the next, often with out clear-cut lines of separation. Second, the entire concept of race today has become a socially and politically charged issue. Therefore, its utility both within science and within society has been questioned. Ironically, however, at the same time that this debate is going on among social science academics, concerning the reality and utility of the race concept, new discoveries are coming along each year that make race assessment from individual remains a more and more precise scientific process. In fact, research in this area is advancing faster than in the other areas, such as aging, calculation of stature, or sex determination.
What Is Race, Ethnicity, or Cultural Affiliation?
Most dictionaries provide adequate definitions of race and so do some text books of physical anthropology and human variation. Races (whether within Homo sapiens or other species) are always a “subdivision of a species,” and they can be either major or minor subdivisions. Most definitions state that a race is a population that can be distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics. Within species of mammals, such as wolves or members of the deer family, for instance, the major subdivisions are called subspecies. Within Homo sapiens, the major subdivisions have historically been called major or geographical races. Examples would be those major groups, such as the caucasoid peoples of Europe and the negroid peoples of Africa. Local subdivisions, of course, occur within these (such as the Pygmies of central Africa and the northwestern Europeans of western Europe) and these have actually been given the name local races. Members of some of these local races, and the even smaller tribal or village populations within them, are sometimes difficult to discern from members of neighboring, related populations both visually on the living people and skeletally on the deceased ones. Thus, these minor distinctions between people have not become an important part either of society’s assessment of a person (as reflected in the records) or of the forensic physical anthropologist’s research focus or case work. Forensic anthropology attempts to describe human remains in the same terms as living people are described by society; that is, in this case by the major racial terms of white, black, East Asian, Native American, and so forth.
People often ask how many major or geographical races are recognized by scientists and what are the correct names for them. The answer is that there is not perfect agreement among physical anthropologists on these major categories. The East Asian peoples and the Native Americans, for instance, have been separated on two distinct continents for at least 11,000 years and yet share many physical traits in common due to their common ancestry. Therefore, some anthropologists classify them together as “mongoloid peoples” and others split them into two separate geographic races (East Asian, Native American) based on the traits that do differ between them.
Many forensic anthropologists recognize six geographical races: Polynesians of the Pacific Islands; Native Americans of North, South, and Central America; australoid peoples of New Guinea, aboriginal Australia, and Melanesia; east Asian or mongoloid peoples of Korea, China, Japan, and other regions of eastern Asia; whites or caucasoids of Europe, west Asia, and north Africa; and the blacks or negroids of sub-Saharan Africa. Terminology for these major human populations also varies. The leading handbook in human osteology (i.e., human bone studies) sticks to the traditional terms (caucasoid, mongoloid, negroid) while one of the most popular recent forensic anthropology textbooks has adopted the more current, politically correct terminology of Asian, white, black, Native American. In case reports, the forensic anthropologists normally present findings in the terminology most familiar to law enforcement and the other members of society (i.e., black, white, Native American, Asian).
Ethnicity is a more complicated matter than race and often involves language, culture, and religion, as well as biology. Culture means the ideas, customs, and life ways of a people, those attributes that are transmitted by tradition and not by genetics. In the broadest sense, then, culture includes both language and religion, but it also encompasses many other learned behaviors as well (e.g., art, music, foods, marriage customs, etc.).
Ethnic groups in the United States, such as the Hispanics, African Americans, and Jewish Americans are actually defined by their cultural identity more than by their ancestry. Yet, in almost all cases, ancestry is a distinctive part of the mix as well. Because most Hispanics in the United States are also mestizo (a blend of Spanish and Mesoamerican Indian) they show a distinctive blend of Native American and caucasoid traits that makes their skeleton identifiable forensically. Those that are entirely or almost entirely Spanish will, of course, not be distinguishable skeletally from other caucasoid peoples (but are usually classified in society as “white” as well).
Most African Americans derive about 75 percent of their genetics from sub-Saharan African populations (and are 25 percent northwestern European). They, in fact, are not classifiable as African American without some discernible black African ancestry. Therefore, members of this ethnic element are almost as readily identifiable skeletally as are the unmixed members of the major racial populations (but show a pattern of traits from two major populations instead of one).
At the other extreme in the culture–biology mix among American ethnic groups are the Jewish Americans. Even though most Jewish Americans trace their ancestry to the ancient Hebrews of the eastern Mediterranean, they are defined by their religion. This means that some Jews have no Hebrew ancestry at all (e.g., recent converts), and some others who do have some Hebrew ancestry still have received more genes from non-Jewish ancestors than from ancient Hebrew ones. This is further complicated by the fact that the original Hebrew peoples were skeletally nearly identical to other eastern Mediterraneans. Skeletally, American Jews are essentially indistinguishable from other white Americans; that is, they may be ethnically distinct, but are racially caucasoid.
Even though cultural affiliation usually leaves few indicators on the bones, sometimes it does leave clear, important ones. Extreme wear and other conditions of the teeth can almost always help distinguish the skeletons of per historic Native Americans from those of whites. Carving and decorating of teeth and sometimes the artificial shaping of heads are also permanent indicators of social statuses and cultural practices during life. Skeletal injuries, pathologies such as arthritis, and other markers of activity or occupation may indicate cultural affiliation. Items buried with a person can sometimes reveal things about their lifestyle, but they are also subject to falsification. When clear indications of cultural affiliation or lifestyle do occur on skeletons, they can be very helpful in establishing identity, just as much as the genetically produced skeletal characteristics. Figure 47 shows not only different cultural affiliation for the two skulls (by the different patterns of dental wear), but also different physical traits indicative of ancestry. As mentioned in Table 5 and illustrated in Figure 47, the Native American has wider cheekbones (and a less curved suture below the eye orbits) than the white, and the lower jaw is heavier. Also obvious from the Figure 47 photographs is a curved (concavo convex) nasal profile of the Native American and a straight profile for the white. Even more obvious is the sharp lower margin of the nasal openings (with a long nasal spine) for the white and a medium/dull lower margin for the Native American with a much less prominent nasal spine.
What Methods Are Used to Establish Ancestry/Race from Bones?
Methods very similar to those used to determine sex from an unknown skeleton can also be used to determine race. That is, observations of the shapes of bones and also precise measurements of the skull and certain long bones can produce reliable results in the hands of well-trained forensic anthropologists. One big difference between race assessment and sex determination is that the best area of the skeleton for sex determination is the pelvis (and the skull is the second best area), while the best area of the skeleton for race assessment is the skull (and the pelvis is of little value). Particularly, the delicate bones of the mid-face (nose, palate, cheekbones) are the most valuable in assessing race. During body recovery, great care should be taken to preserve those thin bones of the face. The thigh bone, or femur, is also important in race assessment as well as sex determination, and calculation of stature. Preserving this bone for thorough study is important for many reason
Table 5 lists some of the common skeletal traits of the skull and face that are useful to forensic anthropologists because they vary significantly according to major geographical race. Only the major human populations common to North America are listed in Table 5 because, within the continental United States, at least, Polynesian peoples and Australian natives, and other australoid peoples, are only infrequently encountered in forensic contexts. It will be noted in the table that a fair number of traits are the same for the Native American and East Asian populations. Clearly, it is justifiable to combine them into a single “mongoloid” geographical race, as many authors do. Yet, they have occupied two separate continents for over 11,000 years and, therefore, have developed some differences as well (e.g., head form, nasal profile). So, it is likewise justifiable to place them in separate major geographical races (and as our society does this, so do most forensic anthropologists).
Precise measurements of the skull vault and face, using standard sliding and spreading calipers, can also be fed into discriminant function formulas that predict major racial affiliation. An important extensive database of skull measurements from skeletons from all over the world continues to be compiled at the University of Tennessee. A computer program based on the thousands of measurements in this database is available to forensic anthropologists. It is called FORDISC and the most recent updated version of it is FORDISC 3.0. It will match an unknown skull to the most likely population of origin. Sometimes surprising precision (local racial population identity, etc.) can be attained with this system. Skulls that are atypical for their population or from a poorly documented population may be mis classified by the FORDISC program. Many experienced forensic anthropologists have found that a combination of these metric (measurement) methods and the nonmetric (visual) ones, like those listed in Table 5, is the safest and best approach.
How Accurate Are Assessments of Ancestry/Race from Bones?
Law enforcement personnel sometimes ask, “How accurate is racial assessment from a skeleton?” In short, the forensic anthropologist can answer, “Quite accurate.” This is for a number of reasons. First, North America has an almost unique history that allows race to be a bit more “biologically real” than in many other parts of the world. People have come here from widely separated regions of the planet (west Africa, northwest Europe, east Asia) where human populations have evolved different physical traits to allow adaptation to very different conditions (mostly climatic differences). Furthermore, they came to America without a lot of the “intermediate” populations being well represented. This makes the major races in North America look more distinctly different from each other than they might in most “Old World” areas (Europe, Asia, Africa) where all of the intermediate populations are represented, often forming a very gradual transition from one major population to the next.
In most parts of North America, where most people can identify them selves clearly within one major racial population or another, and where these populations are rather distinct from one another (Native American, white, etc.), a well-qualified forensic anthropologist can be very accurate in race assessment. As with sex determination, the experienced forensic anthropologist expects to almost never “misclassify” a skeleton as to major racial affinity. If a set of remains is too fragmentary (e.g., missing the facial skeleton) or otherwise too problematic to allow an accurate assessment, the anthropologist may choose not to offer an opinion. That kind of professional caution also helps keep the success rate high.
Some of us in forensic anthropology have explained to our students, who have also asked about the accuracy of assessing ancestry, that if you can tell racial identity on the living person, then you can be just as accurate (or more so) from the boney skeleton. It is true that skin color, hair form, shape of the lips and eyes are useful, and these traits are completely gone from bony skeletons. However, many of the skeletal traits listed in Table 5 are just as revealing of ancestry (to the well-trained forensic anthropologist) as those various soft tissue traits and there are more of them to look at.
Over the years I have personally encountered two cases where my own assessment of ancestry from the skeleton was more accurate than the personal records on the living individual compiled by law enforcement. One was a transient laborer from a community where those who worked with him had thought he was Hispanic. My examination of his skeleton revealed caucasoid traits without any sign of Mesoamerican Indian characteristics. I explained to law enforcement that this is certainly possible in the case of some Hispanics, but would be unusual for the Hispanics in that area. They went back to the community to check more thoroughly because sex, age, stature, and some distinctive physical traits clearly fit the decedent. More thorough research revealed that he had been a dark complexioned individual of Italian descent and not of Hispanic origin at all.
The other case was a difficult one because the well-preserved skull revealed a very clear pattern of caucasoid ancestry, but with two traits that strongly suggested Native American affinities. I had two other well-qualified forensic anthropologists also examine the cranium. Two of us concluded “white” ancestry and one said Native American (based especially on one of the two traits that admittedly would have been rare for an American white). Later the individual was identified. He was a Native American from a neighboring reservation. I saw a picture of him and he was dark and appeared fairly “Plains Indian” on the photo. As one of the two who had called him “white,” I was shocked and I asked for his tribal genealogy record. All agencies cooperated and the records showed him to be of 25 percent European ancestry. I expressed interest in documenting this case for the forensic record as he was only 25 percent white, but showed well over 75 percent caucasoid skeletal traits. In the ensuing investigation a relative came forward and confessed that the tribal genealogy record was incorrect and that the decedent was in fact, of 50 percent white ancestry. This certainly made it easier to understand the pattern of traits found on the skull (and made two of us feel a bit relieved). It is also revealing that the skeletal profile on the decedent cast more suspicion on the veracity of the tribal records than did the young man’s physical appearance when he was alive.
Conclusions
Clearly, the main reason many social scientists today are questioning the race concept and striving for new terminology for the major human population groups is a fear of racism. They believe that too much focus on racial variation might lead to racist thinking and that the old racial terms contribute as well because they carry too much baggage from a racist past. They are also unaware of any positive value in continuing to view human variability through a “racial lens” as they call it. Even though some of their fears have some basis in past human events, it would seem basically foolish to assume that racism today should arise from a focus on physical race differences any more than sexism should emanate from a focus on physical sex differences. The truth is that a recent focus on the physical differences between women and men has led to great strides in women’s health. Some medical researchers today are also finding that the same sort of attention to human population differences in physiology is leading to new and more effective approaches in diagnosis and treatment of minority disease problems. So, not only does a knowledge of race and racial differences lead to positive identification in forensic science, but it helps fight disease more effectively among minority patients, who for too long have been overlooked when they were perceived as “biologically identical” to middle class whites.
It is because of the forensic anthropologists’ realization of the above mentioned important applications of knowledge about racial variation, as well as a keen appreciation for the “beauty” of race and races as an evolutionary adaptive mechanism to differing climates that leads the vast majority to reject the “race denial” approach of many other contemporary social scientists. Even those forensic anthropologists who do reject aspects of the race concept as overly simplistic and do not particularly like the existing terminology for the major stocks of Homo sapiens know that they can work within that framework and provide answers that law enforcement understands and needs. Forensic anthropologists continue to serve law enforcement with clear answers on race that serve society in the important function of solving crimes by assisting with positive identification of unknown skeletons.
Chapter 6
George W. Gill
The determination of ancestry (race) from human remains, as mentioned briefly in the preceding chapter, is a very important step in the identification process. Whether the decedent is a Native American, a white, or a black is important information to know in order to begin the process of screening missing persons’ records. Just as determination of age, sex, and living stature can help narrow the number of records, so does knowledge of the major human population to which the decedent belongs. In fact, traditionally the four “pillars” of the skeletal identification process have always been the determination of sex, race, age, and stature.
For two reasons this separate chapter on assessing ancestry has been created, apart from the coverage of sex, age, and stature mentioned in the last chapter. First, establishing ancestry from bones, and other remains, is a more subtle and difficult process than determining, for instance, sex. Sex is a discrete, clear-cut condition in nature (either male or female) while populations and races follow a gradual gradient from one to the next, often with out clear-cut lines of separation. Second, the entire concept of race today has become a socially and politically charged issue. Therefore, its utility both within science and within society has been questioned. Ironically, however, at the same time that this debate is going on among social science academics, concerning the reality and utility of the race concept, new discoveries are coming along each year that make race assessment from individual remains a more and more precise scientific process. In fact, research in this area is advancing faster than in the other areas, such as aging, calculation of stature, or sex determination.
What Is Race, Ethnicity, or Cultural Affiliation?
Most dictionaries provide adequate definitions of race and so do some text books of physical anthropology and human variation. Races (whether within Homo sapiens or other species) are always a “subdivision of a species,” and they can be either major or minor subdivisions. Most definitions state that a race is a population that can be distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics. Within species of mammals, such as wolves or members of the deer family, for instance, the major subdivisions are called subspecies. Within Homo sapiens, the major subdivisions have historically been called major or geographical races. Examples would be those major groups, such as the caucasoid peoples of Europe and the negroid peoples of Africa. Local subdivisions, of course, occur within these (such as the Pygmies of central Africa and the northwestern Europeans of western Europe) and these have actually been given the name local races. Members of some of these local races, and the even smaller tribal or village populations within them, are sometimes difficult to discern from members of neighboring, related populations both visually on the living people and skeletally on the deceased ones. Thus, these minor distinctions between people have not become an important part either of society’s assessment of a person (as reflected in the records) or of the forensic physical anthropologist’s research focus or case work. Forensic anthropology attempts to describe human remains in the same terms as living people are described by society; that is, in this case by the major racial terms of white, black, East Asian, Native American, and so forth.
People often ask how many major or geographical races are recognized by scientists and what are the correct names for them. The answer is that there is not perfect agreement among physical anthropologists on these major categories. The East Asian peoples and the Native Americans, for instance, have been separated on two distinct continents for at least 11,000 years and yet share many physical traits in common due to their common ancestry. Therefore, some anthropologists classify them together as “mongoloid peoples” and others split them into two separate geographic races (East Asian, Native American) based on the traits that do differ between them.
Many forensic anthropologists recognize six geographical races: Polynesians of the Pacific Islands; Native Americans of North, South, and Central America; australoid peoples of New Guinea, aboriginal Australia, and Melanesia; east Asian or mongoloid peoples of Korea, China, Japan, and other regions of eastern Asia; whites or caucasoids of Europe, west Asia, and north Africa; and the blacks or negroids of sub-Saharan Africa. Terminology for these major human populations also varies. The leading handbook in human osteology (i.e., human bone studies) sticks to the traditional terms (caucasoid, mongoloid, negroid) while one of the most popular recent forensic anthropology textbooks has adopted the more current, politically correct terminology of Asian, white, black, Native American. In case reports, the forensic anthropologists normally present findings in the terminology most familiar to law enforcement and the other members of society (i.e., black, white, Native American, Asian).
Ethnicity is a more complicated matter than race and often involves language, culture, and religion, as well as biology. Culture means the ideas, customs, and life ways of a people, those attributes that are transmitted by tradition and not by genetics. In the broadest sense, then, culture includes both language and religion, but it also encompasses many other learned behaviors as well (e.g., art, music, foods, marriage customs, etc.).
Ethnic groups in the United States, such as the Hispanics, African Americans, and Jewish Americans are actually defined by their cultural identity more than by their ancestry. Yet, in almost all cases, ancestry is a distinctive part of the mix as well. Because most Hispanics in the United States are also mestizo (a blend of Spanish and Mesoamerican Indian) they show a distinctive blend of Native American and caucasoid traits that makes their skeleton identifiable forensically. Those that are entirely or almost entirely Spanish will, of course, not be distinguishable skeletally from other caucasoid peoples (but are usually classified in society as “white” as well).
Most African Americans derive about 75 percent of their genetics from sub-Saharan African populations (and are 25 percent northwestern European). They, in fact, are not classifiable as African American without some discernible black African ancestry. Therefore, members of this ethnic element are almost as readily identifiable skeletally as are the unmixed members of the major racial populations (but show a pattern of traits from two major populations instead of one).
At the other extreme in the culture–biology mix among American ethnic groups are the Jewish Americans. Even though most Jewish Americans trace their ancestry to the ancient Hebrews of the eastern Mediterranean, they are defined by their religion. This means that some Jews have no Hebrew ancestry at all (e.g., recent converts), and some others who do have some Hebrew ancestry still have received more genes from non-Jewish ancestors than from ancient Hebrew ones. This is further complicated by the fact that the original Hebrew peoples were skeletally nearly identical to other eastern Mediterraneans. Skeletally, American Jews are essentially indistinguishable from other white Americans; that is, they may be ethnically distinct, but are racially caucasoid.
Even though cultural affiliation usually leaves few indicators on the bones, sometimes it does leave clear, important ones. Extreme wear and other conditions of the teeth can almost always help distinguish the skeletons of per historic Native Americans from those of whites. Carving and decorating of teeth and sometimes the artificial shaping of heads are also permanent indicators of social statuses and cultural practices during life. Skeletal injuries, pathologies such as arthritis, and other markers of activity or occupation may indicate cultural affiliation. Items buried with a person can sometimes reveal things about their lifestyle, but they are also subject to falsification. When clear indications of cultural affiliation or lifestyle do occur on skeletons, they can be very helpful in establishing identity, just as much as the genetically produced skeletal characteristics. Figure 47 shows not only different cultural affiliation for the two skulls (by the different patterns of dental wear), but also different physical traits indicative of ancestry. As mentioned in Table 5 and illustrated in Figure 47, the Native American has wider cheekbones (and a less curved suture below the eye orbits) than the white, and the lower jaw is heavier. Also obvious from the Figure 47 photographs is a curved (concavo convex) nasal profile of the Native American and a straight profile for the white. Even more obvious is the sharp lower margin of the nasal openings (with a long nasal spine) for the white and a medium/dull lower margin for the Native American with a much less prominent nasal spine.
What Methods Are Used to Establish Ancestry/Race from Bones?
Methods very similar to those used to determine sex from an unknown skeleton can also be used to determine race. That is, observations of the shapes of bones and also precise measurements of the skull and certain long bones can produce reliable results in the hands of well-trained forensic anthropologists. One big difference between race assessment and sex determination is that the best area of the skeleton for sex determination is the pelvis (and the skull is the second best area), while the best area of the skeleton for race assessment is the skull (and the pelvis is of little value). Particularly, the delicate bones of the mid-face (nose, palate, cheekbones) are the most valuable in assessing race. During body recovery, great care should be taken to preserve those thin bones of the face. The thigh bone, or femur, is also important in race assessment as well as sex determination, and calculation of stature. Preserving this bone for thorough study is important for many reason
Table 5 lists some of the common skeletal traits of the skull and face that are useful to forensic anthropologists because they vary significantly according to major geographical race. Only the major human populations common to North America are listed in Table 5 because, within the continental United States, at least, Polynesian peoples and Australian natives, and other australoid peoples, are only infrequently encountered in forensic contexts. It will be noted in the table that a fair number of traits are the same for the Native American and East Asian populations. Clearly, it is justifiable to combine them into a single “mongoloid” geographical race, as many authors do. Yet, they have occupied two separate continents for over 11,000 years and, therefore, have developed some differences as well (e.g., head form, nasal profile). So, it is likewise justifiable to place them in separate major geographical races (and as our society does this, so do most forensic anthropologists).
Precise measurements of the skull vault and face, using standard sliding and spreading calipers, can also be fed into discriminant function formulas that predict major racial affiliation. An important extensive database of skull measurements from skeletons from all over the world continues to be compiled at the University of Tennessee. A computer program based on the thousands of measurements in this database is available to forensic anthropologists. It is called FORDISC and the most recent updated version of it is FORDISC 3.0. It will match an unknown skull to the most likely population of origin. Sometimes surprising precision (local racial population identity, etc.) can be attained with this system. Skulls that are atypical for their population or from a poorly documented population may be mis classified by the FORDISC program. Many experienced forensic anthropologists have found that a combination of these metric (measurement) methods and the nonmetric (visual) ones, like those listed in Table 5, is the safest and best approach.
How Accurate Are Assessments of Ancestry/Race from Bones?
Law enforcement personnel sometimes ask, “How accurate is racial assessment from a skeleton?” In short, the forensic anthropologist can answer, “Quite accurate.” This is for a number of reasons. First, North America has an almost unique history that allows race to be a bit more “biologically real” than in many other parts of the world. People have come here from widely separated regions of the planet (west Africa, northwest Europe, east Asia) where human populations have evolved different physical traits to allow adaptation to very different conditions (mostly climatic differences). Furthermore, they came to America without a lot of the “intermediate” populations being well represented. This makes the major races in North America look more distinctly different from each other than they might in most “Old World” areas (Europe, Asia, Africa) where all of the intermediate populations are represented, often forming a very gradual transition from one major population to the next.
In most parts of North America, where most people can identify them selves clearly within one major racial population or another, and where these populations are rather distinct from one another (Native American, white, etc.), a well-qualified forensic anthropologist can be very accurate in race assessment. As with sex determination, the experienced forensic anthropologist expects to almost never “misclassify” a skeleton as to major racial affinity. If a set of remains is too fragmentary (e.g., missing the facial skeleton) or otherwise too problematic to allow an accurate assessment, the anthropologist may choose not to offer an opinion. That kind of professional caution also helps keep the success rate high.
Some of us in forensic anthropology have explained to our students, who have also asked about the accuracy of assessing ancestry, that if you can tell racial identity on the living person, then you can be just as accurate (or more so) from the boney skeleton. It is true that skin color, hair form, shape of the lips and eyes are useful, and these traits are completely gone from bony skeletons. However, many of the skeletal traits listed in Table 5 are just as revealing of ancestry (to the well-trained forensic anthropologist) as those various soft tissue traits and there are more of them to look at.
Over the years I have personally encountered two cases where my own assessment of ancestry from the skeleton was more accurate than the personal records on the living individual compiled by law enforcement. One was a transient laborer from a community where those who worked with him had thought he was Hispanic. My examination of his skeleton revealed caucasoid traits without any sign of Mesoamerican Indian characteristics. I explained to law enforcement that this is certainly possible in the case of some Hispanics, but would be unusual for the Hispanics in that area. They went back to the community to check more thoroughly because sex, age, stature, and some distinctive physical traits clearly fit the decedent. More thorough research revealed that he had been a dark complexioned individual of Italian descent and not of Hispanic origin at all.
The other case was a difficult one because the well-preserved skull revealed a very clear pattern of caucasoid ancestry, but with two traits that strongly suggested Native American affinities. I had two other well-qualified forensic anthropologists also examine the cranium. Two of us concluded “white” ancestry and one said Native American (based especially on one of the two traits that admittedly would have been rare for an American white). Later the individual was identified. He was a Native American from a neighboring reservation. I saw a picture of him and he was dark and appeared fairly “Plains Indian” on the photo. As one of the two who had called him “white,” I was shocked and I asked for his tribal genealogy record. All agencies cooperated and the records showed him to be of 25 percent European ancestry. I expressed interest in documenting this case for the forensic record as he was only 25 percent white, but showed well over 75 percent caucasoid skeletal traits. In the ensuing investigation a relative came forward and confessed that the tribal genealogy record was incorrect and that the decedent was in fact, of 50 percent white ancestry. This certainly made it easier to understand the pattern of traits found on the skull (and made two of us feel a bit relieved). It is also revealing that the skeletal profile on the decedent cast more suspicion on the veracity of the tribal records than did the young man’s physical appearance when he was alive.
Conclusions
Clearly, the main reason many social scientists today are questioning the race concept and striving for new terminology for the major human population groups is a fear of racism. They believe that too much focus on racial variation might lead to racist thinking and that the old racial terms contribute as well because they carry too much baggage from a racist past. They are also unaware of any positive value in continuing to view human variability through a “racial lens” as they call it. Even though some of their fears have some basis in past human events, it would seem basically foolish to assume that racism today should arise from a focus on physical race differences any more than sexism should emanate from a focus on physical sex differences. The truth is that a recent focus on the physical differences between women and men has led to great strides in women’s health. Some medical researchers today are also finding that the same sort of attention to human population differences in physiology is leading to new and more effective approaches in diagnosis and treatment of minority disease problems. So, not only does a knowledge of race and racial differences lead to positive identification in forensic science, but it helps fight disease more effectively among minority patients, who for too long have been overlooked when they were perceived as “biologically identical” to middle class whites.
It is because of the forensic anthropologists’ realization of the above mentioned important applications of knowledge about racial variation, as well as a keen appreciation for the “beauty” of race and races as an evolutionary adaptive mechanism to differing climates that leads the vast majority to reject the “race denial” approach of many other contemporary social scientists. Even those forensic anthropologists who do reject aspects of the race concept as overly simplistic and do not particularly like the existing terminology for the major stocks of Homo sapiens know that they can work within that framework and provide answers that law enforcement understands and needs. Forensic anthropologists continue to serve law enforcement with clear answers on race that serve society in the important function of solving crimes by assisting with positive identification of unknown skeletons.
