Using a sample of anonymized U.S. forensic anthropology cases (n = 251) from the FADAMA database, we assess the degree of concordance between decedents' social identifiers and anthropologists' continental-based classifications. We report high success rates (>90%) that generally support previous findings, yet we acknowledge the limitations of assessing "ancestry" accuracy based on resolved cases and draw attention to situations in which our methods fail. For example, forensic anthropologists achieve just 20% accuracy when classifying individuals as "other" or "mixed"-problematic categories that we argue should be rejected. Leveraging our findings, we ask: what are we really estimating when we perform a skeletal assessment of "ancestry" in the US context? We argue that the "ancestry estimates" historically and routinely produced in forensic anthropology instead give information on population affinity: a measure of how similar a given case is to one among several socially relevant groups of interest. Distancing forensic anthropology from genetics and other disciplines that estimate ancestry, the approach of population affinity assesses similarities to both social and biological groupings, potentially at a fine-grained level, attempting to account for the complex histories, shared biologies, and wide ranges of diversity that characterize our communities and our casework. Population affinity is a flexible and inclusive approach that more accurately describes current forensic anthropological analyses of human variation. Going forward, we must acknowledge and build on the contributions of previous scholars as we work together toward our shared goal of theoretically grounded analyses of human variation that accurately and equitably serve all casework decedents.
Keywords: ancestry; forensic anthropology; population affinity; population history; race; typology.
© 2021 American Academy of Forensic Sciences.