Although the concept of race has been thoroughly criticised in biological anthropology, forensic anthropology still uses a number of methods to determine the ‘race’ of a skeleton. The methods must be evaluated to see how effective they are given large individual variation. This study used 20 cases of skeletons of varied provenance to test whether the nine published methods of ‘race’ determination, using a range of various approaches, were able to consistently identify the ethnic origin. No one individual was identified as belonging to just one ‘major racial class’, e.g. European, meaning that complete consistency across all nine methods was not observed. In 14 cases (70%), various methods identified the same individual as belonging to all three racial classes. This suggests that the existing methods for the determination of ‘race’ are compromised. The very concept of ‘race’ is inapplicable to variation that occurs between populations only in small ways and the methods are limited by the geographic population from which their discriminant functions or observations of morphological traits were derived. Methods of multivariate linear discriminant analysis, e.g. CRANID, are supposed to allocate an individual skull to a specific population rather than a ‘major race’. In our analysis CRANID did not produce convincing allocations of individual skeletons to specific populations. The findings of this study show that great caution must be taken when attempting to ascertain the ‘race’ of a skeleton, as the outcome is not only dependent on which skeletal sites are available for assessment, but also the degree to which the unknown skeleton’s population of origin has been investigated.
"Giles and Elliot (1962) describing their method as the ‘standard’ of racial determination. Contrarily, Snow et al. (1979) found that in a collection of 42 skulls from White, Black and Indian Americans, the racial origin of only 30 skulls was identified correctly using the Giles and Elliot (1962) method."
30/42 = 71.4%
It seems odd this would be quoted as an argument against forensic science and ancestry determination from a skeleton. 70% is a reliable statistic. I think the authors of this paper think the success rate should be 99% or something which is false. It was only ever put at 70% from the start. However the paper raises some good points and issues.
xyyman Member # 13597
posted
Did you graduate from school? For race to be a fact it has to be 100% 70% is good enough depending on the premise. Race is indicative of purity. NO ONE IS PURE! NO ONE! EVERY PHENOTYPE IS OF AFRICAN ORIGIN. ALL!!! Thus there is no race thus skeletoon determination is no better than ~70%. ie about 1/3 the time they are unsure.
DD'eDeN Member # 21966
posted
The older the specimen, the less the phenotype/genotype divergence, the smaller the differences. At some point, at the LCA split of Homo & Pan, there were no white/black/yellow/red differences. Local adaption (mutations favorably selected) produced local races, not species.
Clyde Winters Member # 10129
posted
This is an interesting paper. The results are only applicable for CRANID. This is the first time I heard of this program. Most of the studies I have seen use FORDISC .
.
ausar Member # 1797
posted
FORDISC is whack, read the scientists' critiques.
There is a correlation between genetics and certain aspects of the middle of the face identifying 'races.' What the one set shows about 'lineage' so does the other.
Tukuler Member # 19944
posted
FORDISC is whack, read the scientists' critiques.
There is a correlation between genetics and certain aspects of the middle of the face identifying 'races.' What genetics reveals about ancestry so can the skull.
CelticWarrioress Member # 19701
posted
XyYThater, tell me Whitey hater if race doesn't exist then how can race-ism exist & how can anyone be race-ist? Sorry but you Whitey haters can't have it both ways race either exists and thus racism exists or neither does. You, Clyde & Tukuler are not for Black people, you are simply against White people.
Tukuler Member # 19944
posted
I am not against white people. I would appreciate it if you'd not say that I am. Thank you.
quote:Originally posted by CelticWarrioress: XyYThater, tell me Whitey hater if race doesn't exist then how can race-ism exist & how can anyone be race-ist? Sorry but you Whitey haters can't have it both ways race either exists and thus racism exists or neither does. You, Clyde & Tukuler are not for Black people, you are simply against White people.
Dear CelticWarrioress, we all know you aren't too bright.
But let me help you out. Humanity is all from one tree, the differences you tend to focus on makes up only a small portion biological "differences" which evolved in situ. And even this small portion is based on arbitrary. Since mutations are effected by climate, diet, environment as an output. Which then give an outcome of physical appearance. Based on this it's able to trace ancestry, thou people are biological entities.
So race indeed doesn't exist, it's the social concept of this arbitrary is what does. If you would open your eyes, and remove your deep rooted hate for blacks (the arbitrary and social concept), then maybe you'll understand it one day. I'm sure you have learned about Mendels Law, in high school?
No one individual was identified as belonging to just one ‘major racial class’, e.g. European, meaning that complete consistency across all nine methods was not observed.
Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor Member # 18264
posted
quote:Originally posted by Dead: From the paper:
"Giles and Elliot (1962) describing their method as the ‘standard’ of racial determination. Contrarily, Snow et al. (1979) found that in a collection of 42 skulls from White, Black and Indian Americans, the racial origin of only 30 skulls was identified correctly using the Giles and Elliot (1962) method."
30/42 = 71.4%
It seems odd this would be quoted as an argument against forensic science and ancestry determination from a skeleton. 70% is a reliable statistic. I think the authors of this paper think the success rate should be 99% or something which is false. It was only ever put at 70% from the start. However the paper raises some good points and issues.
In my family we have people with prognathism in various degrees, some are maxillary and others mandible. And some with no prognathism at all. And I'm speaking of the 1st and 2nd lineage.
posted