Presentation Type
Poster Presentation
Category
Social Sciences/Humanities
Abstract/Artist Statement
Within the realm of forensic anthropology when analyzing a set of remains for identification, analysis parameters with results provide four main categories: European, African, Asian, or mixed ancestry. Some software such as FORDISC may include other groups such as Guatemalan, but they still seem centered on the 3 main groupings of European, African, or Asian. These groupings are from a history of being focused on attributing “race” to individuals and coloring everything through a lens of “superiority”. Peoples of India's skeletal remains when analyzed depict features associated with Europeans, Africans, and Asians causing them to be labeled many times as having mixed ancestry. Researchers with experience may identify them correctly but not always. A review of many studies coming out of India sees Peoples of India population-specific studies with some statistic formulas being developed for the purpose of analysis. Genetic analysis shows Peoples of India aside from Africans as being the most genetically diverse. This study focuses on craniometric analysis using statistics to show if there is a significant difference between Asian populations and populations from India. Preliminary statistical results show a significant difference between Asian populations and the Peoples of India populations represented within the dataset constructed for this study. Does this mean these populations are part of another ancestral group or are significantly different enough to be a separate category unto themselves?
Mentor Name
Randall Skelton
Peoples of India: Asian Descent or Separate Ancestral Category?
UC North Ballroom
Within the realm of forensic anthropology when analyzing a set of remains for identification, analysis parameters with results provide four main categories: European, African, Asian, or mixed ancestry. Some software such as FORDISC may include other groups such as Guatemalan, but they still seem centered on the 3 main groupings of European, African, or Asian. These groupings are from a history of being focused on attributing “race” to individuals and coloring everything through a lens of “superiority”. Peoples of India's skeletal remains when analyzed depict features associated with Europeans, Africans, and Asians causing them to be labeled many times as having mixed ancestry. Researchers with experience may identify them correctly but not always. A review of many studies coming out of India sees Peoples of India population-specific studies with some statistic formulas being developed for the purpose of analysis. Genetic analysis shows Peoples of India aside from Africans as being the most genetically diverse. This study focuses on craniometric analysis using statistics to show if there is a significant difference between Asian populations and populations from India. Preliminary statistical results show a significant difference between Asian populations and the Peoples of India populations represented within the dataset constructed for this study. Does this mean these populations are part of another ancestral group or are significantly different enough to be a separate category unto themselves?