The Role Of Race Classifications In Forensic Anthropology

Race classifications in forensic anthropology.

Race classification will always precede controversy. Perhaps nowhere else in the scientific world is such controversy as profound as in the field of forensic anthropology. Forensic anthropology is concerned with the employment of the scientific standards and principles of anthropology in order to investigate crime. It is the unfortunate task of the forensic anthropologist to make use of race as a means of classifying human remains on a near daily basis. While the clear majority of professionals in the field of forensic anthropology do not subscribe to the concept of race, racial classification is still a major part of the field today (Sauer, NJ). The continued use of racial categorization in the
The nature and number of these measurements has vastly changed over time. Originally with the Giles and Elliot method, 8 measurements were taken and manipulated via mathematical formula to yield a single value that is then checked to see if it falls above or below a prescribed value(Sauer, NJ). More recently, the process has been somewhat refined. Professor W.W. Howells proposed a method which relies on the measuring of six angles and twenty length measurements taken with four different types of callipers; which are then entered into a multivariate formula (Sauer, NJ). The output of the formula is compared to a pre-defined, statistically average value for what may be considered common to a particular race. By completing the necessary measurements and equations, the race of a deceased individual can be estimated - estimation being the key term. Due to genetic variation in individuals, to accurately say that an individual is with absolute certainty a part of a particular race is nearly impossible. As has been demonstrated in the past when the Giles and Elliot technique was called into question and the method was used to estimate the races of skulls known to be from black and white people - only one out of seven estimations
The sources are correct in stating that one cannot accurately define the race to which an individual self-identified by examining their remains, as well as in claiming that there is no biologically valid basis for the race concept. However, it is important to view the use of ‘race’ in forensic anthropology not as a means of allocating a social category to a deceased individual but rather as a means of formulating an estimation of what a passer-by may have identified that person as. The goal of forensic anthropologists is to understand more about the remains they are presented with, and ultimately to bring justice for the person to which they belonged. By adding a description of the skin colour that a person could have had in life to the forensic profile of their remains; there is a much higher chance of the victim being identified and of delivering justice to those responsible. The term ‘race’ is synonymous with many socially derived connotations for various historical and social reasons. To allow scientists to continue their work free of ethical burden it is proposed by Sauer that the term race be abolished and replaced with a term such as “ancestry” that carries less social implication (Sauer,