Sex estimation research trends in forensic anthropology between 2000 and 2022 in five prominent journals.

In forensic anthropology, osteological sex estimation methods are continuously reevaluated and updated to improve classification accuracies. Therefore, to gain a comprehensive understanding of recent trends in sex estimation research in forensic anthropology, a content analysis of articles published between 2000 and 2022 in Forensic Science International, the Journal of Forensic Sciences, the International Journal of Legal Medicine, the American Journal of Biological Anthropology, and Forensic Anthropology, was performed. The main goals of this content analysis were to (1) examine trends in metric versus morphological research, (2) examine which areas of the skeleton have been explored, (3) examine which skeletal collections and population affinities have been most frequently utilized, and (4) determine which statistical methods were commonly implemented. A total of 440 articles were coded utilizing MAXQDA and the resulting codes were exported for analysis. Statistical analyses were conducted utilizing the Cochran-Armitage and Jonckheere-Terpstra tests for trends, as well as Fisher-Freeman-Halton tests. The results demonstrate that sex estimation research published in these journals has prioritized metric over morphological methods. Further, the most utilized skeletal regions continue to be the skull and pelvis, while the most popular classification statistics continue to be discriminant function analysis and logistic regression. This study also demonstrates that a substantial portion of research has been conducted utilizing U.S. and Europe-based collections and limited populations. Based on these results, future sex estimation research must continue exploring the use of long bones and other postcranial elements, testing newer methods of analysis, as well as developing population-inclusive methods.

Perceptions of Race and Ancestry in Teaching, Research, and Public Engagement in Biological Anthropology.

The concept of race has a complex history in the field of biological anthropology. Despite increased recognition of the racist origins of the discipline, there remains little agreement about what the concept means, how it is used, or how it is discussed. This study presents the results of a survey of biological anthropologists to investigate the relationship of biological anthropologists with race and ancestry. The survey focuses on the areas of research, public engagement, and teaching as related to these concepts. Results indicate that a large majority of biological anthropologists agree that race (as a social not biological concept) is separate from ancestry. The majority of respondents agreed that ancestry categories should be based on geography (e.g., Asian, European, and African), and more anthropologists thought the terms "Hispanic" and "Latino" were inappropriate ancestry categories. While most respondents felt that discussions of these terms were not matters of "political correctness," nearly a quarter of respondents suggested that concerns over the moral and ethical implications of research (e.g., photos, terminology, and ancestry) result in the silencing of anthropological research. Overwhelmingly, respondents felt that anthropologists have a responsibility to ensure the avoidance of misappropriation of their work by race science and by white nationalists/supremacists. Some differences in survey responses were found relating to respondents' subdiscipline, educational level, location, age, self-identified racial/ethnic categories, and gender. In regard to teaching, survey results indicate that these concepts are minimally covered in university classrooms. When taught, topics focus on the colonialist/racist history of anthropology, the presence of white privilege/supremacy, and racism. Based on the results of this survey, the authors argue for greater public engagement on these concepts, a standardized system of teaching race and ancestry, and a disciplinary conversation about practice and terminology. In this way, biological anthropologists can best place themselves to combat racism in a socially responsible way.

Language use in ancestry research and estimation.

Recent discussions have revolved around the concept of ancestry and ancestry estimation; however, the associated terminology and its theoretical underpinnings have not been similarly examined. This research evaluates the concepts (e.g., race, ancestry, ethnicity) currently in use, examines if they are consistent with the groups employed to illustrate them (e.g., Black, European, Hispanic), and looks for patterns in language usage. Articles in the Anthropology, Odontology, and General sections of the Journal of Forensic Sciences between 2009 and 2019 were evaluated for ancestry-related language use. For each article, the concepts, examples, and bibliographic information were recorded, and the relationship between concept and example was examined. These data were cross-tabulated to evaluate relationships between the variables. Cramer's V was used to assess the strength of association of these relationships. In this sample, ancestry predominates, especially recently The concept used is significantly associated with all variables except publication date and authors' institution(s). Despite the prevalence of the ancestry concept, racially based terms for individual groups were common. The use of ancestry, over race, in forensic contexts has been suggested to be a primarily linguistic change; these results may support that assertion. Inconsistent language usage leads to a lack of clarity in meaning among researchers and misinterpretation of the data. It is critical to recognize that inconsistencies exist, but also to understand why they exist. These results underscore the long overdue need for the inclusion of diverse perspectives in forensic anthropology, especially in the current conversations surrounding ancestry and ancestry estimation.

Impact of population-specific dental development on age estimation using dental atlases.

OBJECTIVES: The steady development and subsequent eruption of the dentition is particularly useful for the estimation of age in juveniles. There are few studies that examine and test methods on a population-diverse sample. Our goal is to test the Ubelaker () and London Atlas (2010) dental charts on a sample representing several different population backgrounds to infer if refinement for population-specific standards should be developed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The first and second authors examined panoramic radiographs of 335 individuals from the James K. Economides Orthodontic Collection blind to chronological age, sex, and ancestry and scored using both dental atlases. RESULTS: The age of Native Americans and African Americans was generally overestimated, suggesting faster rates of development. European Americans and New Mexico Hispanics, while not always showing the highest success rates, generally were closer to the correct age than other ancestry groups. The overall success rate for Ubelaker () was 80.00% for both observers, while the London Atlas was significantly lower at approximately 21.79-23.28%. Accuracy rates did not differ significantly between ancestry groups, though patterns were evident regarding under- or over-estimation of age. DISCUSSION: The present study demonstrates that incorrect age estimations were typically still within 1.5 years of the actual age. Ubelaker () had higher rates of success due to broader age ranges. The results suggest that though accuracy rates did not significantly differ, different developmental rates may affect age estimates and population-specific standards should be considered for known-ancestry individuals, while aging standards constructed from a diverse sample should be utilized for unknown-ancestry cases.

Observer error and its impact on ancestry estimation using dental morphology.

Dental morphology is becoming increasingly visible in forensic anthropology as part of the estimation of ancestry. As methods are developed based on these data, it is important to understand the role of observer error in data collection and method application. In this study, 10 observers collected dental morphological data on 19 traits on the same set of nine plaques. Various measures of interrater reliability were calculated to assess observer error. Data were then input into one of three ancestry estimation methods based on dental morphology to understand the role of observer error in these methods. Results show low rater reliability for all dental morphological traits when all 10 observers are compared. Rater reliability increases when only experienced observers are compared and traits are dichotomized. Further, differences in trait scores by observers resulted in disparate estimations of ancestry in each of the methods. While observer error appears to be an issue in dental morphological methods of ancestry estimation, these problems can be addressed. An argument is made for advanced training in dental anthropology in laboratories and in graduate programs. Further, methods need to test for and employ traits with high rater agreement.