Biology Reference
In-Depth Information
statistic soon to be published: an artificial neural network (aNN). The algorithm (and a graph-
ical user interface) will be available in early 2013. Using the aNN, which contains data on
over 1100 individuals collected by JTH (American Black, American White, Hispanic, East
Asian, etc.), the cranium described above was correctly placed in the Hispanic category.
This cranium, which originated along the U.S.
e
Mexico border, was later identified as
a male from the northern Mexico state of Sonora who perished while crossing the border.
Discussion of the problems inherent with the use of the category “Hispanic” is necessary
here. See
Box 5.1
.
BOX 5.1
HISPANIC: WHAT'S IN A NAME?
The most recent census in the United
States (2010) revealed that the group desig-
nated as Hispanic was the fastest growing
minority group, with an increase in 15.2
million people over the last census in 2000.
This has resulted in a total Hispanic pop-
ulation of 50.5 million, 16% of the total U.S.
population (
Humes et al., 2011
). The census
does not define “Hispanic” as a “race,”
considering that it is a separate concept from
race. Therefore, individuals were able to self-
report Hispanic origin
and
racial origin. Of
those who identified as Hispanic, over half
self-reported White as their race. About one
third reported being in the category “some
other race” alone while the rest reported
being in other racial categories alone (e.g.,
Black, Asian (
Humes et al., 2011
).
These facts are telling of the problems
inherent with ancestry estimation using
a category designator such as “Hispanic.”
The fact that the Hispanic population has
rapidly grown makes this an issue of
importance for forensic anthropologists in
the United States who must estimate the
biological profile, as Spradley and colleagues
(2008) have noted. The undocumented
border
Southwestern United States has additionally
highlighted the importance of this subject
(
Anderson, 2008; Anderson and Parks, 2008;
Fulginiti, 2008; Birkby et al., 2008
). Further, as
several workers have discussed, “Hispanic”
is a linguistic category, applied to individuals
who speak Spanish as their native language
(
Slice and Ross, 2004; Ross et al., 2004;
Spradley et al., 2008; Birkby et al., 2008
;
Hurst, 2012). The language being spoken has
nothing to do with actual features measured
from bones that may indicate ancestry;
however, we persist in utilizing this category.
The 2010 U.S. Census defined Hispanic or
Latino as “a person of Cuban, Mexican,
Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or
other Spanish culture or origin regardless of
race” (
Humes et al., 2011
:2). The problem
here is twofold: (1) we are using Hispanic as
a racial category for forensic identification
even in the face of evidence from sources
such as the census data that individuals
considering themselves to be Hispanic also
consider themselves to be some other race;
and (2) persons speaking Spanish as their
native language (excluding Spain) originate
from two continents and numerous coun-
tries, which include hundreds of millions of
crosser
deaths
issue
in
the
(Continued)
