How forensic anthropology's classification practices perpetuate racism and how science is decolonizing it
Forensic anthropology has long captivated the public imagination through crime scene investigations and human identification mysteries. Yet, beneath this façade of scientific objectivity lies a contentious practice with profound social implications: ancestry estimation. For decades, forensic anthropologists in the United States have classified skeletal remains into racial categories like "White," "Black," or "Asian" based on cranial measurements and morphological features.
This practice—rooted in colonial-era science—is now undergoing radical scrutiny and transformation. Recent research reveals how these methods not only perpetuate harmful racial stereotypes but also lack evolutionary biological validity 1 . The field is now grappling with its controversial past and working toward a more ethically grounded future through decolonial approaches that prioritize human dignity over classification.
The implications extend far beyond laboratory walls. Law enforcement agencies use ancestry estimates to identify unknown remains, which can influence the course of criminal investigations and either reinforce or challenge racial biases within the justice system. Meanwhile, the popularity of direct-to-consumer genetic testing kits ($4.5 billion industry by 2033) demonstrates our deep fascination with origins, yet these technologies come with their own ethical complexities regarding privacy and interpretation 5 8 .
$4.5B
Genetic testing market by 2033
White, Black, Asian
Racial classifications used in forensic anthropology
The practice of classifying human remains into racial categories dates back to the 19th century when anthropologists like Samuel Morton collected and measured skulls to support hierarchical theories of human variation. These early efforts were explicitly tied to colonial projects and racial segregation policies, providing所谓 "scientific justification" for discrimination.
Dominant Paradigm: Scientific racism
Key Methods: Craniometry, phrenology
Social Implications: Justification for colonialism, slavery, immigration restrictions
Dominant Paradigm: Professionalization of forensic anthropology
Key Methods: Standardized morphoscopic traits
Social Implications: Entrenchment in medicolegal system
Dominant Paradigm: Statistical refinement
Key Methods: Computer-assisted algorithms, large databases
Social Implications: Illusion of objectivity, continued racial bias in identifications
Dominant Paradigm: Decolonial critique
Key Methods: Rejection of race-based classification, ancient DNA analysis
Social Implications: Movement toward ethical alternatives
In recent decades, traditional morphological approaches have been repackaged with 21st-century statistical analyses, creating an illusion of scientific precision. Forensic anthropologists developed sophisticated algorithms and reference databases that allegedly could quantify the probability of an individual belonging to particular ancestral groups.
Decolonial theory emerged from Latin American scholars like Aníbal Quijano and María Lugones, who argued that colonialism established not just political domination but also epistemological control—determining what counts as valid knowledge.
"The coloniality of gender is not simply about the imposition of Western gender categories but about the destruction of alternative ways of understanding personhood and relationship" 4 .
When applied to ancestry estimation, decolonial critique reveals how the practice:
The social impact of ancestry estimation extends beyond academic debates. Misguided classifications can:
Overreliance on racial categorization may delay or misdirect investigations when remains are forced into inaccurate categories.
The practice lends scientific authority to the false concept of biological race, which can influence public understanding of human diversity.
Classifying Indigenous remains using colonial categories disrespects cultural traditions and spiritual beliefs about death and ancestry.
Perhaps most damningly, research shows that the morphoscopic traits used in ancestry estimation have no demonstrated connection to actual genetic populations or evolutionary history. They are simply visual characteristics that previous anthropologists subjectively decided were racially indicative, creating a self-perpetuating system without biological foundation 1 .
A groundbreaking 2013 study published in PLOS ONE provided compelling evidence against traditional ancestry estimation methods 7 . Researchers analyzed complete mitochondrial genomes (mitogenomes) from seven individuals—four ancient (2,500-6,000 years old) and three living—from the Northwest Coast of North America.
Carefully curated skeletal remains from well-documented archaeological contexts
Dedicated ancient DNA facilities, multiple extraction controls
Complete mitogenome analysis using next-generation sequencing technology
Precise chronological placement of all ancient specimens
Classification into genetic lineages based on mutational profiles
Comparison with existing databases of ancient and modern populations
The findings revealed a complex picture of population history that directly contradicted assumptions underlying morphological approaches:
| Sample | Age | Genetic Haplogroup | Status in Modern Populations | Implications |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lucy Islands | 6,000 BP | D4h3a | Extinct in region | Demonstrates population turnover |
| Prince Rupert Harbour | 2,500-5,000 BP | A2ag, A2ah | Still present | Shows genetic continuity |
| Modern Tsimshian | Present | A2ag, A2ah | N/A | Confirms maternal lineage persistence |
These findings demonstrate that physical features do not reliably indicate deep ancestral connections and that population histories are more complex than simple racial categorizations allow. The disappearance of the D4h3a lineage highlights how genetic drift and population turnover can eliminate lineages that persisted for millennia, making modern racial categories even more inadequate for capturing ancient biological relationships.
Modern approaches to understanding human variation rely on a different set of tools than traditional ancestry estimation:
Enable complete genome sequencing from minute quantities of DNA, even from degraded ancient samples.
Specialized chemicals and protocols designed to maximize yield from poorly preserved samples while minimizing contamination.
Accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) requires specialized target materials for precise dating of organic remains.
Software packages for analyzing population genetic data and modeling historical relationships.
| Aspect | Traditional Approach | Decolonial Alternative |
|---|---|---|
| Primary data | Morphoscopic traits, craniometrics | Ancient DNA, whole genomes |
| Reference samples | Modern racial categories | Temporally appropriate ancient specimens |
| Community role | Subjects of study | Collaborative partners |
| Theoretical basis | Biological race concept | Population genetics, evolutionary theory |
| Social implications | Reifies racial categories | Challenges biological race |
| Legal applications | Racial identification | Individual identification without racial labeling |
The decolonial critique doesn't leave forensic anthropology without identification tools—it points toward more ethically and scientifically sound approaches:
Instead of racial categories, estimating probable geographic origin based on neutral genetic markers or morphological features with known spatial distributions.
Expanding use of distinctive anatomical features, medical implants, dental patterns, and other unique identifiers that don't rely on racial classification.
Placing greater emphasis on archaeological context, personal effects, and local missing persons databases rather than presuming racial identity from bones.
Developing identification protocols in collaboration with indigenous communities that respect cultural values and knowledge systems.
Despite growing consensus about the problems with ancestry estimation, significant barriers to change remain:
Ancestry estimation is embedded in training programs, certification exams, and laboratory protocols 1 .
Some medical examiner offices have standard operating procedures that require ancestry estimation, often based on outdated concepts.
Some researchers continue to develop new statistical methods for racial classification without addressing fundamental critiques.
The movement to decolonize ancestry estimation represents more than just technical debate about methodology—it's part of a broader reckoning with how science has been complicit in maintaining colonial power structures and racial hierarchies. The evidence is clear: morphoscopic traits have no demonstrated relationship to genetic ancestry or evolutionary history, and their continued use perpetuates the false concept of biological race 1 7 .
The future of forensic identification lies not in perpetuating colonial categories but in developing methods that acknowledge the complexity of human history, the continuous nature of biological variation, and the ethical responsibilities scientists have to communities affected by their work. Only by uncloaking this "lost cause" can forensic anthropology truly serve justice rather than undermine it.
The revolution in anthropology reminds us that all science is conducted within social and historical contexts—and that the most objective science is that which critically examines its own underlying assumptions.
References will be added here in the proper format.