Clase 1 a Century of Skeletal Biology and Paleopathology

8/12/2019 Clase 1 a Century of Skeletal Biology and Paleopathology

1/12

GEORGE J A R M E L A G O SD E N N I S P V A N G E R V E N

A Century of Skeletal Biology and Paleopatho logy:Contrasts C ontradictions and ConflictsABSTRACT For the first half of the 20th century , biological anthro polo gy stagna ted in a state in wh ich racial typo logy was its ma jortheoretical and methodological focus. In 1 9 5 1 ,SherwoodWash burnproposed the ne w physical anth rop olog y tha t wo uld move bio-logical anthropology beyond d escription. Washburn reposit ioneditinto a science that focus ed on process, theory, and hypothesis te st-ing. The commitment to a process-oriented biological anthropology has been slow, but there has been progress. Biocultural studiesand functional anatomy have produced a more dynamic science characterized by hypothesis testing and a heightened concern for cau-sality. Unfortunately,areturntohistorical particularism has limited progress. An increasing interest in forensic app lication and resur-gent interest inmeasuresofpop ulatio n distances and migrations representsareversiontoan earlier descriptive past. [Ke ywor ds:adaptation, osteology, evo lution, history]

There is no presentor future, only the past happeningover and over againEugene O'Neill

HUMAN SKELETONS REPRESENT ANSWERS,andthe goal of osteology is to frame thequestions.There are important questions that ancient skeletons willnot answer, andthere areunim portant questions thatthey will. The ques t, of course, has always been to discovermeaningful questionsquestions central to knowledgeand the human condition, solvable through the analysisof human skeletal remains. The search continues and thestakes are high . We are searching for noth ing less tha n theidentity of ourscience defined bytha t small spaceinwhich the possible meets the meaningful.

The space, of course, is an ever changing landscape ofpossibilities. Osteologists once limited to simple techniquesof counting and measurement are now armed with chemi-cal assay techniques, imaging technology, and multivari-ate statistics programs for high-speed desktop computers.Studies ofbiological distance and m ultivariate m orp ho-metrics compete for journal space with neutron activationanalyses and dietary reconstructions. Newtechniqueshave led to new questions and reconsideration of old ones.This volatile mix of old andnew defines thecontrasts,contradictions, andconflicts of ourtime, and this also

leads to an important insight. Where we are today is verymu ch a reflection of where we have bee n.It isinteresting, th en, tha t osteology, a sciencedi-rected so much to the past, has often failed to reflect on itsown.Put simply, anunderstanding of skeletal biology'shistory may help us evaluate the importanceofthe ques-tions we ask and methods we apply today.Our interest followsinthe traditionof earlier studiesby Gabriel Lasker (1970) and C. Owen Lovejoy et al. (1982).Like them, we intend to explore the apparent disconnec-tion between the questions asked and the techniques em-ployed by contem porary osteologists. In ourview,thepromiseof a"new physical anthropolo gy," driven by theconvergence of new methods applied to new questions, hasfailed to take solid holdinosteology. The disc ipline findsitself awash innew and increasingly soph isticated tech-niques applied to old questions with roots deep in the pastbut with little importance to contemp orary anthropology.

We, therefore, have several objectives inthis article.We first examine the conceptofrace and racial determ i-nism that drove both the earliest questions as well as theearliest methods of osteology. We then consider the trans-formation of osteology int o a new scienceof skeletal biol-ogy armed with new methods and directed toward newwider-ranging questionsofprocess and causality. Finally,we discuss the discipline's retreat back to a neoracial ap-proach and withit aresurgent interestinthe m ethod s ofdescription.

AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST105 1):53-64. COPYRIGHT 2003, AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION


2/12

54 American Anth ropo logist Vo l. 105, No. March 2003PRELUDE TO 20TH-CENTUR Y RACIAL STUDIES

It is a capital mistake to theorize before o ne has data. In-sensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, insteadof theories to suit facts.Sherlock Holmes , A Scandal in Bohemia

To consider any aspect of early anthropology, and,most particularly, osteology, demands a consideration ofrace. Questions of race were entwined in all aspects of thediscipline's beginnings. Claude Levi-Strauss described an-thropo logy's "original sin" as the m isconcep tion t hat racewas essential in understanding what has been termed the"production of civilization" (1952:1-3). Anthropology haswrestled with the question of race as a tool for under-standing behavior for much of its history. Even as anthro-pology moved beyond racial determinism, race remaineda core concept (Lieberman et al. 1989) and continued asthe primary method for explaining human variation inboth living and ancient populations.The roots of the race concept run much deeper thananthropology. Across the millennia of recorded history,race has been an amalgamation of observed biological dif-ferences interpreted through the lens of cultural prejudice.For example, the Egyptians, as early as the 14th centurybefore Christ, assigned humans to four color categories.Red represented themselve s, yellow their Asian enem ies tothe east, white the people to the north, and black the Afri-can populations to the south. Prejudices associated withskin color were largely political. When light-skinned rulersheld power, the Blacks were the "evil race of Ish." WhenBlacks ruled, Whites were "the pale, degraded race of Ar-vad" (Gosset 1963:4).In the centuries before Christ, Greek philosophers en-visioned ascala naturaealong which all the productions ofnature could be arrayed in an upward progression from in-animate matter through the varieties of humanity to God(Mayr 1988:420). By the 18th cen tury, the scala naturaebecame temporalized into the "the Great Chain of Being"(Lovejoy 1936: ch. 1), and race once again took its place inthis scheme. The placement of hum ans along the Chain ofBeing was enhanced in the 1790s by Petrus Campers's de-

velopment of the facial angle. The lowest races had themost projecting (animalistic) faces while the higher raceshad flatter faces. The ideal was the flat face represented inGreco-Roman statuary (Meijer 1997:242).It is not surprising that biological hierarchies rein-forced behavioral hierarchies. For example, Carolus Lin-neau s classified racial types th at inh abited the four regionsof the earth associated geographically with humors thateffected behavior (Stocking 1968:5). Essentialist thinkingof the time argued that the four humors that influencedbehavior (blood, phlegm , black bile, yellow bile) were keyedto geographic locality: American Indians had reddish skin,

were choleric, and regulated by custom; Africans had blackskin, flat noses, werephlegmatic,and governed by caprice;Europeans were white, sanguine,muscu lar, and governed

by law (Slotkin 1965:177-178). Indeed, while we think ofLinnaeus today for his biological constructs, Mark^ (1995)has convincingly argued that when it came to humanity,Linnaeus was more concerned with explaining behaviorthan understanding biology.Two central ideas came into sharp focus during thisperiodraces were real and races were rankable. Theseideas breathed life into an old question: Where did racescome from? Did human races have a monogenic or a poly-genic origin (Greene 1959: ch. 8; Harris 1968: ch. 4)? Poly-genists, such as the French philosopher Voltaire and theU.S.scholars Louis Agassiz, Samuel G. Morton (1839, 1844),and Josiah Nott and George Gliddon (1854) believed inthe separate origin of races as "primordial types." Othersmaintained the view expressed by Saint Augustine a mil-lennium earlier:We may hear of monstrous racespeople who have oneeye in the middle of their foreheads, people with nomouths, people with dog-like heads . . . but whoever isborn a man, that is, a rational mortal animal, no matterwhat unusual appearance he presents in colour, move-ment, sound, nor how peculiar he is in some po w er .. . n oChristian can doubt that he springs from that one proto-plast. [Gosset 1963:6]Skeletal biology found its place in the debate and in sodoing fueled a love affair between race science and theskull. Morton (1844) measured crania from around theworld in an attempt to both rank races and determine theantiquity of racial types. Differences in features such ascranial capacity appeared to have great antiquity and,thus,supp orted polygenesis. God, it appeared, ha d created

not one humanity but m any unequal kinds.Johann Friedrich Blumenbach stood squarely on theside of monogenesis but was no less committed to rank-ing. The monogenist view simply required evidence fordegeneration from God's original creation. His approachhad both diachronic and synchronic elements. Living raceswere categorized into one of five color categories (black,African, Aethiopisea;1 brown, Malayan, O-tahetae; white,Caucasian, Georgianie; yellow, Mongolian, Tungusae; andred, American, Caribaei). Corresponding cranial featureswere the n identified as a mea ns for tracing racial ancestries.Referring to anc ient an d mo dern crania, Blumenbach states:When skulls of the Mongolian, American, Caucasian, Ma-lay, and Ethiopian races were viewed toge ther . . . theCaucasian was seen to have the most beautiful and sym-metrical form ... in like manner, the white color of theCaucasian skin was thenorm from whichdegenerationto -ward darker shades had taken place. [Greene 1959:224,emphasis added]This not ion of racial origins, and with i t ideal ized ra-

c ia l types , f it wel l wi th b ib l ical in terp reta t ion s . Indee d , de-generat ionis t s such as Blumenbach main ta ined a s t r i c t lytheological view of creation with a White race (Adam) cre-ated in God's image. As Caucasians expa nded into n ew re-gions, they were exposed to environmental elements andcultural factors that caused degeneration from a primor-dial type to form new races. Degeneration explained what


3/12

Armelagos and Van Gerven A Century of Skeletal Biology and Paleo patho logy 55was clearly viewed as both a biological (white to dark) andsocial (civilized to savage) fall from grace.Two intellectual events, the development of evolu-tionary theory after 1859 and the discovery of Mendelismin 1900, had the potential to force a reevaluation of therace concept. That potential, if born with Darwin and thegene, was stillborn. While Darwinism ended the mono-genesis-polygenesis debate in favor of a new scientificmonogenesis, degenerationists simply turned their theoryupside down. The fall from Adam simply became an as-cent from the ape.

In this sense, it is not surprising that racial determinismcontinued to prevail in the post-Darwinian era. Roger Lewinechoes this point,Inequality of raceswith blacks on the bottom andwhites on the topwas explained away as the natural or-der of things: before 1859 as the product of God's crea-tion, and after 1859 as the product of natural selection.[1999:3]

The quickness by which such diverse fields as medicine,anthropology, education, sociology, and paleontology lentsupport to "proven" racial inferiority shows that racismand racial hierarchies continued to be an integral part ofthe intellectual climate after Darwin (Haller 1971:xi-xii).There can be no question that the intellectual shiftfrom racial degeneration to evolution was important forosteology, but not for the reasons traditionally given (Ar-melagos et al. 1982). Evolutionism did not shift scienceaway from Linnaean taxonomy but actually reinforcedtaxonomic descriptions and definitions. Taxonomy be-came the meth od for creating phy logeny. This was no lesstrue for the study of race. Racial typologies were simplycast in the form of phylogenies as metaphors for race his-tory. Thus taxonomy, as an inherently static, preevolu-tionary conce pt, did not give way to evolution ism after1859; rather, evolutionism became cast in the form of tra-ditional descriptive historicism (Armelagos et al. 1982).Post-Darwinian osteology was far from ready to aban-don race. At a time when archaeology and paleontologywere contributing little more th an curios, the comparativestudy of race seemed th e o nly way to reconstruct our evo-lutionary past. In an age with few fossils, primitive racesbecame "living fossils" and were viewed quite literally asevolutionary survivals of the various stages thro ugh whichmore "advanced" races had evolved. The key was findingsome cranial trait or combination of cranial traits bywhich a growing number of races could be classified andranked into an evolutionary hierarchy.

To this end, there was a rapid proliferation of meas-urements and instruments concerned with racial assess-ment. Paul Broca developed many of the anthropometricinstrum ents in the late 1880s. He defined m any of the cra-nial landmarks that were essential in establishing meas-urement standards. Standardization was the goal of con-ventions held in Germany, Monaco, and Geneva in thelate 1800s to 1900s. In 1934, an international agreement

resolved national differences in measurements (Spencer1997), giving a further impe tus to description.The methods of anthropometry failed to provide an-swers to even the most basic questions: How many racesare there? What is their relative ranking? Race scienceneeded a new approach, and the promise lay in the newscience of genetics. The impact of genetics had to wait u n-til the development of a synthetic theory of evolution inthe 1930s.Most importantly, genetics did less to challenge therace concept than spawn the quest for new and more sci-entific racial traits. In this context, evolution ary theo ryworked against a genetic-racial approach. The problemwas this: If racial categories were to be miniphylogenies,the traits chosen must reflect what Darwin called "propin-quity of descent." However, if the traits used to build thephylogeny were evolving, then similarity may or may notreflect "propinquity of descent." Similarities could reflect

parallelisms and evolutionary convergence.If nonadaptive traits could be found and linked tospecific racial groups, then race-science and classificationcould be used to establish racial histories. More tha n ever,race-science became the means to uncover culture history.And, ironically, in its search for nonadaptive traits, osteol-ogy became antievolutionary.THE FIRST FIVE DECADES OF THE 20TH CENTURYDuring the first half of the 20th century, biological an-thropology was shaped by the contributions of Franz Boas(Baker 1994), Ales Hrdlicka (Blakey 1997), and Earnest A.Hooton (Spencer 1981). Boas and Hooton were instrumen-tal in establishing academic anthropology at Columbiaand Harvard, while Hrdlicka built the Division of PhysicalAnthropology in th e National Museum of Natural History.

Questions of culture history, and the history of hu-man races, were of central importance to anthropology.Hooton and Hrdlicka envisioned a historical processdriven by the forces of hu m an migration s, diffusion, andracial admixture, and for each the key to unlocking thathistory lay in the bones of antiquity. Their quest for cul-ture history intertwined with the constant ebb and flow ofhuman races came to define much of osteology's role inphysical anthropology.

In the case of Boas, his tho ug hts o n race and his o ppo -sition to racial constructs of the time were mixed at best.On the positive side, he criticized the most basic aspectsracial typology. He asked simple but important questions.For example, how could the average represent the normwhen all averages are derived from the sum of deviations?How could we accept the fixity of races if traits such as ce-phalic index (the most sacred of racial traits) changed bythe mag nitude of a race in on e generation, as was d em on-strated by Boas (1912) in a classic comparison of Jewishand Sicilian immigrants and their U.S.-born children? Ifraces are in a con stant state of transforma tion, how can we


4/12

56 American Anthro pologist Vo l. 105 No. 1 March 2003

ever know their number or hope to establish a rankingamong them?Boas also launch ed a sustained a ttack against attem ptsto link race and cultural achievement. He was a majorforce in the promotion of racial equality (Baker 1994). Hiscriticism of evolutio nists such as L. H. Morga n and E. B.Tylor led him to a strong antievolutionary stance (Harris1968) that repelled all aspects of evolutionary thought.Thus, for all of his positive contributions to modern an-thropology, his antievolutionary position was overwhelm-ing and left his students and followers with few questionsto ask beyond questions of diffusion, and few me thod s toapply beyond description.Hrdlicka's major goal at the beginning of the centurywas to establish an institute of biological anthropologysimilar to that founded by Broca in France. When his ef-forts were thwarted (Boas was a major force in impedingfunding), he moved to establish the museum as a majorresearch institution. Hrdlicka succeeded in transformingthe Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural Historyinto a major force in skeletal biology and built a vast col-lection of skeletal remains.

Hrdlicka's (1907) earliest contribution to skeletal biol-ogy was the systematic analysis of New World skeletal ma-terial. The d ata were used to refute claims ofapre-Pleistoceneoccupation of the New World. He spent a considerableportion of his later life examining the Asiatic origins ofNative Americans. These works led him to field studies inAlaska and Aleutian Islands that established the shovel-shaped incisor as a racial hallmark linking Asian and NewWorld po pulation s (Hrdlicka 1920).Hrdlicka's greatest contribution was the founding of

t h e American Journal of Physical Anthropology AJPA) in 1918.The journal was established with the blessing of RobertLowie, then-editor of the American Anthropologist(AA),an dHrdlicka's editorship would last for 24 years (Glenn 1997:59).His vision was made clear in the inaugural issue:The paramount scientific objective of physical anthropol-ogy is the gradual completion, in collaboration with theanatomist, the physiologist, and the chemist, of the studyof the normal white man living under ordinary condi-tions. [Hrdlieka 1918:18]Twelve years later, Hrdlicka spearheaded the effort toorganize the American Association of Physical Anthropolo-gists (AAPA). Only eight professional physical anthropolo-gists were among the 18 anthropologists that comprisedthe 85 charter members of the association. Anatomistswere the largest professional group with 47 mem bers.Caucasian biology was the norm against which otherraces were to be compared. To this end, Hrdlieka expressedconcern regarding the rudimentary state of racial studies(Blakey 1987:10), and this was no idle concern. WhereBoas argued for the independence of race, language, andculture, Hrdlieka saw race as a force of nature shaping and

constraining the progress of culture. In his own words,"The real problem of the American Negro lies in his brain,and it would seem, therefore, that this organ above all

others would have received scientific attention" (Hrdlicka1927:208-209).While Boas's and Hrdlieka's accom plishm ents were le-gion, Hooton, a classicist, trained the first generation ofleaders in physical anthropology. Hooton trained seven ofthe eight pres idents of AAPA serving from 196 1-77 . Asgreat as his teaching was, his research reflects the contra-dictions of the past. For many, The Indians ofPecos Pueblo(1930) laid the foundation for modern skeletal biology. Init, Hooton used an epidemiological approach that fore-shadowed m ode rn pa leopathology . His innovative use ofsimple statistics such as percentage frequencies would notbecome common for another 30 years. He was a primemover in interdisciplinary interpretation s based on a solidknowledge of host, pathogen, and environmental rela-t ionships.

At the same time, he worked with blinders imposedby a racial typological approach. Fixed racial traits were areality in his view, and the presence of all such traits re-quired an explanation in strictly racial-historical terms.For example, the presence of Negroid racial featuresamong the Indians of Pecos Pueblo led to a preposteroustheory in which he envisioned "pseudo-Negroid" typesmaking their way from northwest Africa, across the Beringstraits, and then down to Pecos carrying "a minor infusionof Negroid blood .. . with the m" (Hooton 1930:356). Sadly,Hooton's innovative approach to paleopathology re-maine d a footnote to history while his racial typology cap-tured the interest of many researchers.To his credit, Hooton spearheaded what has been de-scribed as the "most sop histicated 'data cru nch ing' opera-tion that anthropologists had seen until the 1950s" (Giles1997:500). The Statistical Laboratory at Harvard, equippedwith state-of-the-art IBM computers, was the forerunnerofdata analysis that transformed biological anthropology.The new instrumentation did not, however, result in moreinnovative research. W. W. Howells (1954, 1973, 1989),Hooton's successor at Harvard, continued his legacy of de-scriptive typology.

SKELETAL BIOLOGY IN THE MOD ERN ERA:LIFE AFTER THE 1950sThe test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to holdtwo opposed ideas in m ind at the same time a nd still re-tain the ability to function.

F.Scott Fitzgerald, The Crack UpCircumstantial evidence is a very tricky thing. It mayseem to poin t very straight to on e thin g, bu t if you shiftyour own poin t of view a little, you m ay find it poin tingin an equally uncompromising manner to somethingentirely different.

Sherlock Holmes,The Boscombe Valley MysterThe early 1950s can be seen as a watershed for biologi-cal anthropology in general and osteology in particulai.


5/12

Armelagos and Van Gerven A Century of Skeletal Biology and Paleopathology 57Discovery of the double helix set the stage for anthropo-logical genetics, and population studies began to make in-roads. But osteological studies continued to reflect theconflicts and contradictions of times past.In 1952, Georg Neumann's "Archeology and Race inthe American Indian" appeared in James B.Griffin'sArche-ologyof the Eastern United States (1952) . Whi le the book de-veloped new ground inU.S.archaeology, Neumann's con-tribution (1952) provided nothing more than an old-timetreatise on racial typology. Cranial types such as the Lenidand Walcolid reified race and reaffirmed the use of cra-niometry as a tool for racial-historical rec onstruc tions. YetNe um ann's ch apters (1954a, 1954b) were considered suffi-ciently impo rtant to be published in the Yearbookof Physi-calAnthropology.

The linkage between Neumann and typology is in nosense a stretch. He was described by a close associate as"the last and best of the typologists" (Hall 1997:731), whowas able to bridge the gap between typological and popu-lational paradigms (Hall 1997). The so-called bridge topopulation study was apparently based on his use of largecollections (over 10,000 total). In reality, a population ap-proach exists nowhere in the work, and two of his typeswere based on fewer th an 20 skulls.It is stunning to realize that a year before Neu ma nn'streatise, the Yearbook published Sherwood L. Washburn's(1953) "The New Physical Anthropo logy" an essay origi-nally published in 1951 that became a manifesto for themodern era (Washburn 1951). Wash burn presented a prom-ise of a "new physical anth ropo logy" profoun dly differentfrom the old. Where the "old physical anthropology" re-mained locked in endless description, new theoretical per-spectives would do mina te the new. Most importantly, h y-pothesis testing based on concepts of adaptation andevolution would be the hallmark of modern research.The moment was right for new data and a new ap-proach, and William C. Boyd's Genetics and the Races ofMan (1950) seemed to provide both. Boyd saw the bloodgroups as a panacea for anthropological research. Their in-heritance was understood and their frequencies could bemeasured with precision. They could be studied objec-tively without the prejudice associated with features suchas skin color. Additionally and most essentially, they werenonadaptive. Thus the old took root in the new.

From the very outset, Boyd viewed the blood groupsas unlikely targets of natural selection and, thus, of greatpotential for tracing population movements and recon-structing historical connections among human races.Rather than seeing the blood groups as an opportunity tobreak new conceptual ground, Boyd simply replaced anold osteological app roach with a new genetic one.Boyd specifically targeted osteology on methodologi-cal grounds. He argued that it is difficult to study skeletal

morphology in the living because bones respond rapidlyto environmental influences. Their genetics is complex,and the old measu remen ts were never logically conceived.Boyd, in short, asserted that osteology was passe.

Ironically, Boyd's "cutting edge" genetic research re-mained as devoted to description and typology and ascommitted to the search for nonadaptive (racial) traits asthe osteology he decried. Even when the blood types wereshown to be adaptive (Buettner-Janusch 1960; Otten 1967),researchers continued to use them as racial markers. Theysimply combined multiple blood types (Edmonson 1965)in an attempt to somehow cancel evolutionary influences.We had little more th an "new wine in old bottles."LIFE AFTER THE 1950 s: FUNCTIONAL MORPHO LOGYAND BIOARCHEOLOGY

The pattern of disease or injury that affects any group ofpeople is never a matter of chance. It is invariably theexpression of stresses and strains to which they were ex-posed, a response to everything in their environmentand behaviour.Calvin Wel ls , Bones, Bodies and Disease

In spite of Boyd's view of skeletal biology as passe,new theoretical developments were beginning to emerge.A functional anatomical approach to morphology and therise of bioachaeology provided the stimulus. Develop-ments in these areas increasingly came to reflect Wash-burn's proscriptions for a new biological anthropology,and within it a new skeletal biology. unctional MorphologyThe tools used to understand functional morphology havebeen available for years. Many of the statistics essen tial forteasing out functional relationships began before the 20thcentury. Indeed, skeletal remains provided an importantsource of data for the development of both regression andcorrelation techniques. It was statisticians (Pearson andDavin 1924) who used cranial measurements to distin-guish between "organic" and "spurious" correlations. Or-ganic correlations measured relationships between dis-tinct regions of the crania while spurious correlationsreflected redundant measures within the same cranial(functional) system. This distinction could have laid thefoundation for functional craniology; however, its appli-cation remained largely statistical.It was not until decades later that Melvin Moss (1972)and his colleague R. W. Young (Moss and Young 1960) ex-tended the research of C. J. van der Klaauw (1945, 1952)by modeling a "functional components" approach to cra-nial morphology. In this model, cranial systems such asthe masticatory, neurological, and visual were analyzedfunctionally relative to the soft-tissue organs they sup-ported and protected. Functional craniology provided apowerful tool for the analysis of prehistoric skulls.DavidS.Carlson, Dennis P. Van Gerven, and colleaguesmeasured crania from ancient Nubia using a functionalcraniometric approach (Carlson and Van Gerven 1977,1979; Van Gerven et al. 1976). They then used discrimi-nant functions to identify patterns of facial reduction and


6/12

58 American Anth ropo logist Vo l. 105, No. March 2003cranio-facial evolution across some twelve thous and yearsof Nubian history. The biological data were then used todevelop a dietary hypothesis relating facial reduction tothe cultural evolution of food production and preparationtechnologies. William C. Hylander (1975) applied a simi-lar approach to the analysis of Eskimo crania. In thissense, functional morphology became fertile ground for agrowing biocultural app roach in skeletal biology.A shift away from race and description w ould n otcome easily. Howells rejected such attempts. He stated,"My purpose is not the study of growth but of taxonomy,of the variation betwe en existing recent popu lations in thedry skull" (1971:210), even though he admitted, "we donot know whether . . . (the) variation is of taxonomic, orfunctional importance" (Howells 1973:3). What Howells(1973, 1989) provided was a way to bend the potential ofdiscriminant function statistics to the will of old racialclassifications.

In this sense, complex statistics, including multivari-ate analyses, do not insure a nontypological approach. R.E. Blackith and R. A. Reyment (1971) described the diffi-culty of breaking away from a description and typologyeven when using elaborate statistical procedures (Armelagoset al. 1982:313-314). Typology continues despite our un-derstanding of adaptation and the processes of morpho-logical change confirming the "superficial nature of biol-ogy at the classificatory level" (Blackith and Reyment1971:5).Functional analyses of postcranial remains have beenless controversial since postcranial morphology has beenless central to racial classification. Thus, while there aremany forensic methods for racial determination of longbon es (D ibennardo and Taylor 1983; Komar 1996), therehave been extensive functional analyses as well. For exam-ple,C . Owen Lovejoy (1978) and C. B. Ruff a nd colleagues(Ruff 1984 , 19 93, 200 0; Ruff and Hayes 1983; Ruff et al.1984) have found an important link between climate, lo-comotion, subsistence, and cross-sectional geometry ofthe femur and tibia. Lovejoy has used the approach to ad-dress questions of locomotion in early hominids whileRuff and colleagues have used their data to consider thelink between activity patterns in food getting and the me-chanical properties of bone.Even features linked most closely to forensic descrip-tion can be a rich source of biocultural analysis. The hu-man pelvis has been subjected to a number of studies thatprovide qualitative and quantitative discriminations be-tween male and female pelves (Bass 1995). However, thepelvis can be examined from an adaptive perspective aswellone th at m odels its role in birth an d bipedalism (Si-bley et al. 1992; Tague 1989, 1994). For example, Sibley etal s (1992) study of ancien t Nubian pelves revealed highfrequencies of pelvic contraction in females. This has, inturn, led to new questions concerning infant mortality atthe site. Could there be an interaction between pelvicmo rpholo gy, neo nata l size, and infant m ortality?. The

question is intriguing given that the modal age at death isbirth to six mon ths am ong these ancient Nub ians. ,An obstetric approach to pelvic morphology has beenapplied to fossil remains as well. Robert G. Tague andLovejoy (1986) examined the pelvis of A.L. 288-1 (Lucy)from this perspective and with Karen Rosenberg andWenda Trevathan (Rosenberg 1992; Rosenberg and Tre-vathan 1996) developed a broader evolutionary perspec-tive on the birth process in early hom inids . ioarcheologyIn the 1950s, skeletal biology and archeology were stag-nating in an era of descriptive particularism that created amoribund state for both disciplines. The "new archeol-ogy" transformed archeology by moving it beyon d its fixa-tion on description and cultural diffusion. The new ap-proach (Binford 1962, 1964, 1977; Binford and Binford1968) embraced a concern for the ways in which culturalsystems (the technology, social, and ideological systems)adapted to their environments. This, in turn, led archae-ologists toward the development of general principles ofadaptation that could be applied to both archeologicaland contemporary cultures. Hypothesis testing and theapplication of scientific methodology became the hall-marks of this new process-oriented archeology.

Skeletal biologists, propelled by the "new physical an-thropology, began developing a biocultural approach tothe analysis of skeletal remains that paralleled and supportedthe trends in archeology. These developments occurred ata time when anthropology was a four-field discipline.Physical anthropology was becoming an interdisciplinaryand intradisciplinary undertaking committed to an adap-tive and evolutionary perspective often in a cross-culturalsetting. In this sense, skeletal biology provided time depthto und erstan ding the adaptive process. Skeletal biology in-corporated methodology that it shared with processual ar-cheology to spawn bioarcheology (Buikstra 1977; Larsen1987,1997; for a more complete discussion of these devel-opm ents, see Armelagos in press).The prom ise of bioarchaeology required three factors:(1) a population perspective; (2) a recognition of culture as

an env ironm enta l force effecting an d interac ting with bio-logical adaptation ; an d (3) a m etho d for testing alternativehypotheses that involves the interaction between the bio-logical and cultural dimensions of adaptation.This emergent biocultural view embraced the notionthat a society's technology, social organization, and evenits ideology could play a major role in inhibiting or creat-ing opportunities for biological events such as patterns ofdisease. It is not surprising that this new approach foundfertile groun d in pale opa tholo gy (Armelagos 1 997). Infact, this relationship is so strong that bioarcheology andpaleopathology are linked in the minds of most skeletal

biologists.The traditional focus of paleopathology had been thedifferential d iagnosis of specific diseases such as tubercu losis,


7/12

Armelagos and Van Gerven A Century of Skeletal Biology and Pa leopatho logy 59leprosy, and syphilis, but the approach was inherentlylimited. Bones and teeth do not often respond with thekind of specificity necessary for a clinical diagnostic ap-proach to all diseases. Skeletal and dental remains do, onthe other hand, record stress reaction to a vast array of in-sults. Responses such as trauma, patterns of growth anddevelopment, periosteal inflammation, enamel hypoplasia,and differential mortality can be used to ask a host of in-teresting questions. Their meaning does not lie in the di-agnosis of individual cases but, rather, in their pattern byage, sex, and env ironm ental (cultural and natural) setting.All tha t is required fox th eir analysis is a single a priori as-s u m p t i o n : Patterns of stress response evidenced in ancientpopulations are the result of systematic environmental forces.The goal of the analysis is to develop and test hypothesesconcerning the forces in play.

The power of bioarchaeology derives from the linkagebetween archaeological and skeletal analyses. This linkagehas made it possible to answer significant questions con-cerning the adaptation of ancient populations. Examplesinclude the regional investigations of Delia Collins Cook(1979), Jane E. Buikstra (1977), and Clark Spencer Larsonand GeorgeR.M ilner (1994), as well as po pulation-specificstudies of health and mortality in relation to subsistence(Cohen and Armelagos 1984), trade (Goodman et al.1992), social stratification (Goo dm an et al. 1995), politicalorganization (Van Gerven et al. 1981), and contact (Bakerand Kealhofer 1996 ). As with fun ctional mo rpho logy ,bioarchaeology shifted the focus away from simple de-scription toward analytical questions of biocultural adap-tation and in situ evolution. The question is, given thepromise of analytical research, has our c om mitm ent to de-scription actually given way?TheConflictGiven the successes of functional and biocultural ap-proaches, the continuing attraction of simple descriptionis surprising. The conflict between description and higher-level analytical (functional and biocultural) analyses re-flects in many ways the tension between the new and oldphysical anthrop ology . This conflict was noted by G abrielLasker some thirty years ago (1970). In Lasker's view,physical anthropology was little more than "the handmaiden to history" (1970:1-2), with little interest in ana-lytical investigations of function, and adaptation. Evenwhen such questions could be asked, description re-mained the preferred goal.Lovejoy et al. (1982) conducted a content analysis ofAJPA a decade later and found Lasker's concern to be wellfounded. W hile analytical research increased from 1930 -80,descriptive studies remained in the majority among allpublications related to osteology.For the purpose of this discussion, we expand ed Love-joy's survey to include two more recent five-year samples(1980-84 and 1996-2000). Following Lovejoy and col-leagues, articles were considered analytical if they pro-

TABLE1.Conten t analysis of h uman osteology articles in the mericanJournal ofPhysical Anthropology 1930-84 and 1996-2000. Modifiedand extended fro m Lovejoy et al. 1982.

1930-19391940-19491950-19591960-19691970-19791980-19841996-2000

Osteology %36.833.742.044.351.355.056.0

Analytical %13.521.129.735.444.143.043.0

Descriptive %86.579.070.364.655.957.057.0

posed and tested specific hypotheses or if they addressedissues of process, function, or attempted to place theanalysis into a broader theoretical context (see Table 1).Articles were considered descriptive if they focused pri-marily on description, sorting methods, or identificationwithout placing the results into a broader theoretical con-text. What we found reaffirms the concerns expressed byLasker over 30 years ago. If an yth ing , o ur survey suggests ashift toward rather than away from description. Further-more, the pattern does not appear to be changing.There is, however, a certain coarseness to both oursand Lovejoy's surveys. The articles included reflect all as-pects of osteological research including paleontology andprimate anatomy. There is no question that the historicaland theoretical context in which they are framed is ex-tremely diverse. For example, the importance of descrip-tion when the subject is the remains of a new fossil doesnot compare easily to the contribution of yet another de-scription of a well-known lesion in a modern humanskeletal series.With this limitation in mind, we conducted a secondsurvey (1980-84 and 1996-2000) focused entirely onmodern human osteological remains (see Table 2). Wealso categorized the articles into four categories accordingto their major intellectual thrust(s). The categories wereanalytical, descriptive, methodological, and racial. In casesin which the research had more than one emphasis, suchas descriptive and racial, it was counted in more than onecategory. Thus the percentages do not add to 100 percent.As with osteology in g eneral, articles dev oted to mo d-ern human osteology have increased over time relative toall publications in the journal. However, unlike the trendfor all osteology research, the amount of description inhum an osteology has increased by 12 percent com pared toan increase of only seven percent in analytical. The fre-quency of articles devoted to methodology has droppedby 26 percent, and those devoted to or utilizing racial cate-gories have dropped by 14 percent.These data suggest several things of interest. First, in-terest in human osteology is not declining. That said, theresearch is actually becoming more descriptive and rela-tively less analytical. Interest in race has declined, butsuch analyses are still abundant. The interesting questionis this: If skeletal analyses are more descriptive than ever,yet at the same time less interested in methodology and


8/12

60 American An thropo logist Vo l. 105, No. March 2003TABLE 2. Content analysis of human osteology articles in the merican Journafof Physical Anthropology 1980-1984 and 19 96-2000.

Osteology Descriptive Analytical Me thod Race1980-19841996-2000 19%29% 59%71 % 22%29% 43 %17% 26%12%

race,what exactly is the nature of the work being publish-ed? Ironically, while many anthropologists have decriedthe use of race, the race concept continues to provide onereal, although limited, conceptual framework. Alternativebiocultural analyses appear to have stalled, leaving a pau-city of alternatives. As a result, many osteologists have re-turned to the old questions of racial history (often cast interms of biological distance), migration, and diffusion. Inthe case of paleopathology, interest has returned to theold questions of differential diagnosis.The resurgence of description has also been encour-aged by the emergence of new techniques and technology.Washburn predicted that the new physical anthropologywould develop new techniques as part of its advancement.In fact, new technologies have often impeded rather thanpromoted a new perspective. Indeed, much of the publish-ed work reflects what the philosopher Abraham Kaplan(1964) calls the law of the instrument, that is,Givea child

a hamm er and everything in their world needs pounding. Givean osteologist a CAT scan, and every specimen is scanable.THE CHALLENGE

The pop ulation is the last bastion of the typologist.C.Loring Brace

21st-century technology applied to 19th-century biology[comment on the Human Genome Diversity Project]Alan Swedlund

The challenges to skeletal biology come from withinand beyond the discipline. For example, Public Law 101-601, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatria-tion Act (NAGPRA), has been a powerful external influ-ence, but its impact has differed from that which wasanticipated. It was initially believed tha t collections wouldbe lost and that new excavations would be limited or pos-sibly eliminated altogether. Neither outcome has come topass, but the concern led to action. Protocols were devel-oped (Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994) and data were collectedquickly and systematically. Collections that languishedunstudied for years were carefully described using newstandardized techniques. In addition, anthropologists col-laborated with Native American groups in conducting newexcavations (Rose et al. 1996).NAGPRA's impact beyond anthropology was in manyways more negative.A perception of anthropologists chal-

lenging the rights of Native Americans to bury their deadspread throughout the academy. This perception was rein-forced by earlier images of osteologists using craniology to

support racial stereotypes prompted an editorial inNaturepromoting the Human Genome Diversity Project:With physical anthropology un der a cloud for its habit ofusing m easurable skeletal indices as proxies for less tangi-ble attributes (cranial capacity as a measure of intelli-gence, for example), it would be better to invest whatgoodwill there is in a quite different field. [1995:183]At the same time, images of forensic anthropologist"bone detectives" received positive play in the media. Os-teologists are frequently portraye d as key figures in solvingthe most intractable cases. The demands of NAGPRA andforensics are in many ways the same. The emphasis is ondescription with a view to practical application. Researchand training with little or no applied value, 2becom e sec-ondary even in the academy.Currently, some thirty departments of anthropologyoffer programs in forensic anthropology. Even the Nation-al Science Foundation has jumped on the bandwagon byfeaturing "forensic paleontology" in itsFY2002 request toCongress. The result has been a shift away from Wash-burn's "new physical anthropology" back to the traditionaltechniques of human identification. Once again the diag-nosis of age, sex, and race are pa ram ou nt. Racial diagnosti-cians, armed with new techniques and technology, mapthe terrain of cranial morphology much as their forebearsdid over a century ago. Indeed, confidence in the dry skullfor racial diagnosis is little chan ged from the time ofBlumenbach. Osteologist George W. Gill (2000) has goneso far as to proclaim greater con fidence in ske letal featuresthan soft tissue ones. He says, "I am more accurate at as-sessing race from skeletal remains than from looking atliving people standing before me" (2000). Unfortunately,Gill's confidence belies the objective evidence.Goodman (1997) demonstrated that the 85-90 per-cent accu racy claimed by forensic an thro polo gists is seri-ously misleading. High levels of accuracy can be achieved,but only when the skulls meet extremely limiting criteria.For example, Giles and Elliot's (1962) discriminant func-tion formula is based on a reference sample of knowncomposition, and it can indeed achieve 85-90 percent ac-curacy. This level of accuracy is reached only when testedagainst additional specimens from the same reference

sample. When applied to independent samples of knowncomposition (the true measure of its success), the methodis less than 20 percent accurate (Goodman 1997)a figurethat hardly inspires confidence in forensic anthropology'sability to race a skull notw ithsta ndin g Gill's confidence.Poor performance has not disabused forensic anthro-pologist from selling the m eth od . Fordisc 2.0 (Ousley andJantz 1996) is a computer program designed to diagnoseany skull into one of Howell's geographic populations.The program, however, is seriously flawed (Kosiba 2000).When applied to a cranial from a known African popula-tion (Belcher et al. 2002; Leathers et al. 2002), some fifty

percen t were placed in non-African categories.The failure is interesting if we allow ourselves to thinkbeyond the applied box. The program forced a solution


9/12


10/12

62 American Anthropologist Vol. 105 No. 1 March 2003

his bookAnthropologywith, The knowledge of man's courseof life, from remote past to the present, will not only helpus forecast the future, but may guide us in our duty ofleaving the world better than we found it (1881:439).

To meet these goals, we have to reclaim skeletal biol-ogy as the means to understand morphology from a func-tional perspective and adaptation and evolution from abiocultural perspective. This implies an interdisciplinaryand intradisciplinary approach that is integrated with cul-tural anthropology, archeology, linguistics, and other as-pects of biological anthropology. We believe that skeletalbiology has much to offer in understanding issues that arerelevant to contemporary society. Rather than being ob-sessed with constructing racial classification, we should beexamining the biological consequences of racial analysis.Skeletal biology can help us understand the factors in evo-lution that have led to the global patterns of emerging dis-ease.Nutritional problems that are affecting developed na-tions and the Third World can be better understood froman adaptive and evolutionary perspective of bioarcheol-ogy. Issues of inequality that are a part of many of thecontemporary problems should be the focus of bioarcheol-ogy. Inequality had its beginning in our remote past, andwe should be able to chart its course. Widening gaps in so-cial,political, and economic inequality need to be under-stood from an adaptive and evolutionary perspective.

Reclaiming physical anthropology as anthropologywill require that we reevaluate our past and recast the fieldfor the future. The leading journals in the field, AJPA,AA,andEvolutionary Anthropologyhave to take a more proac-tive position in promoting discussion of what ourfuturesmay become. The start of a new century should be a goodtime to begin.

GEORGEJ.ARMELAGOSDepartment of Anthropology, EmoryUniversity, Atlanta, GA 30322DENNISP. VAN GERVENDepartment of Anthropology, Uni-versity ofColorado,Boulder, CO 80309NOTESAcknowledgments. We wish to acknowledge the contributions ofJames Calcagno, Alan H. Goodman, Clark Spenser Larsen, DebraMartin, Lynn Sibley, and Bethany Turner for their comments onearlier versions of this article.1. The third descriptor refers to cranial type.2. We useapplied in the broader anthropological sense. Forensicanthropology has made significant contributions to issues of hu-man rights.REFERENCES CITEDArmelagos, George J.1997 Paleopathology.InHistory of Physical Anthropology: An En-cyclopedia: Vol. 2.F.Spencer, ed. Pp. 790-796. New York: Gar-

land.In press Bioarcheology as Anthropology.InArcheologyasAnthro-pology. D. Nichols andS.Gillespie,eds.Arlington,VA:Archeo-logical Papers of the American Anthropological Association.

Armelagos, George J., DavidS.Carlson, and Dennis P. Van Gerven1982 The Theoretical Foundations and Development of SkeletalBiology.InAHistory of American Physical Anthropology. F.Spencer, ed.Pp . 305-328 .NewYork:Academic Press.Baker, BrendaJ ., and Lisa Kealhofer, eds.1996 Bioarchaeology of Native Americans in the Spanish Border-lands.Gainesville: University Press of Florida.Baker, Lee D.1994 Location of FranzBoaswithin the African-American Strug-gle.Critique of Anthropology 14(2):199-217.Bass,William1995 Human Osteology:ALaboratory and Field Manual. 4th edi-tion. Columbia: Missouri Archaeological Society.Belcher, Robert, Frank Williams, and GeorgeJ.Armelagos2002 Misidentification of Meroitic Nubians Using Fordisc 2.0 (Ab-stract).American Journal of Physical Anthropology Supplement34:42.Binford, Lewis R.1962 ArchaeologyasAnthropology. American Antiquity28:217-225 .1964 AConsideration of Archaeological Research Design. Ameri-can Antiquity29 :425-441 .Binford, Lewis R., ed.1977 For Theory Building in Archaeology. NewYork:AcademicPress.Binford, Lewis R., and SallyR.Binford, eds.1968 New Perspectives in Archaeology. Chicago: Aldine.Blackith, R. E., and R. A. Reyment1971 Multivariate Morphometrics. New York: Academic Press.Blakey, Michael L.1987 Skull Doctors: Intrinsic Social and Political Bias in the His-tory of American Physical Anthropology with Special Referenceto the Work of Ales Hrdlicka. Critique of Anthropology 7(2)-.7-35.1997 Skull Doctors Revisited: Intrinsic Social and PoliticalBiasinthe History of American Physical Anthropology with Special Ref-erence t o the Work of Ales Hrdlicka.InRace and Other Misadven-tures:Essays in Honor of Ashley Montagu in His Ninetieth Year.

L. T.Reynolds andL.Lieberman, eds. Pp. 64-95. DixHills,NY:General Hall.Boas,Franz1912 Changes in Bodily Form of Descendants of Immigrants.American Anthropologist 14:530-562.Boyd, William C.1950 Genetics and the Races of Man. Boston: Little, Brown.Buettner-Janusch, John1960 The Study of Natural Selection and the ABO(H) in Man. nEs-says in the Science of Culture. G.E.Dole andR.Carnerio, eds. Pp.79-110. New York: Crowell.Buikstra, Jane E.1977 Biocultural Dimensions of Archaeological Study:ARegionalPerspective.InBiocultural Adaptation in Prehistoric America. R.L.Blakely, ed. Pp. 67-84. Athens: University of Georgia Press.Buikstra, Jane E., and Douglas H. Ubelaker, eds.1994 Standards for Data Collections from Human Skeletal Re-mains. Fayetteville: Arkansas Archeological Survey.Carlson, David S., and Dennis P. Van Gerven

1977 Masticatory Function and Post-Pleistocene Evolution in Nu-bia. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 46:495-506.1979 Diffusion, Biological Determinism and Biocultural Adapta-tion in the Nubian Corridor. American Anthropologist81(3):561-580.Cavalli-Sforza, L. Luca, Paolo Menozzi, and Alberto Piazza1994 The History and Geography of Humans Genes. Princeton:Princeton University Press.Cohen, Mark Nathan, and George J. Armelagos1984 Paleopathology at the Origins of Agriculture. NewYork:Aca-demic Press.Cook, Delia Collins19 79 Subsistence Base and Health in Prehistoric Illinois Valley:Evidence from the Human Skeleton. Medical Anthropology3(l):109-124.Dibennardo, Robert, and James V. Taylor1983 Multiple Discriminant Function Analysis of Sex and Race inthe Postcranial Skeleton.InAmerican Journal of Physical Anthro*pology61(3):305-314.


11/12

Armelagos and Van Gerven A Century of Skeletal Biology and Paleopa thology 63Edraonson, Monro1965 AMe asur em ent of Relative Racial Differences. Cu rren t An-thropology 6(2):167-198.Giles, Eugene1997 Ho oto n, E(arnest) A(lbert) (188 7-195 4). In History of Physi-cal Anthrop ology: An Encyclopedia, vol. 1.F.Spencer, ed. pp.499-501.New York:Garland.Giles,Eugene, and Orville Elliot1962 Race Identification from C ranial Measu remen ts. Journal of

Forensic Sciences 7:147-1 57.Gill, George W.2000 DoesRace Exist? APropo nent's P erspective:PBS,NOVA,Mysteries of The First Americans. Electronic docu me nt,http://www .pbs.org/wgbh/n ova/first/gill .html, accessed August15,2002.Glenn, James R.1997 American Anthropologist. In History of Physical A nthropo l-ogy.F.Spencer, ed. Pp. 59- 60. New York: Garland.Goodm an, Alan H.1993 On the Interpretation of Health from Skeletal Remains. Cur-rent Anthropology 34(3):281-288.1997 Bred in th e Bone? The Sciences (Mar .-Apr.):20-2 5.Goodm an, AlanH. , DebraL. Mart in , and GeorgeJ.Armelagos1992 Health, Econom ic Chan ge, and Regional Political Econom icRelations: Examples from P rehistory. MASCA Jour nal 9:51- 59.1995 The Biological Consequences of Inequality in Prehistory.Rivistadi Anthropo logia (Roma) 73:12 3-131 .Gosset, Thom as F.1963 Race: Th e History of an Idea in America. Dallas: South ernMethodist Press.Greene, Joh n C.1959 The Death of Adam. New York: Men tor Press.Griffin, Jame sB .,e d.1952 Archeology of the Eastern Un ited States. Chicag o: Unive rsityof Chicago Press.Hall, Roberta L.1997 Neu ma nn, G eorgKarl (1908-1971). Jn History of PhysicalAnthropology, an Encyclopedia, vol. 2.F.Spencer, ed. Pp.731-732. New York: Garland.Haller , Joh nS .1971 Outcast from Evolution . Urb ana: Univ ersity of Illinois Press.Harris , Mar vin1968 TheRiseof Anthropological Theory. NewYork:Crowell andCompany .Hooton , Earnest A.1930 Indi ans of Pecos Pueblo-.AStudy of Their Skeletal Rem ains.New H aven, CT: Yale Univ ersity Press.Howells, William W .1954 The Cranial Va ult Factors of Size and S hape. American Jour-nal of Physical Anth ropolo gy 15:19^18.1971 Application of Mu ltivariate Analysis in Cranio-FacialGrowth.In Cranio-Facial Growth i n Man.R.E. Moy ers andW.M .Krogman, eds. Pp. 209 -218 . Oxford: Pergam on.1973 Cranial Variation in Man :AStudy by M ultivariate Analysisof Patterns of Difference am ong Recent H um an Population s. Pa-pers of the Peabod y Museu m of Archaeology and Ethnology, H ar-vard University, vol. 67. Cam bridge,MA:Peabody Museum ofArchaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University.1989 Skull Shapes and the M ap: Craniom etric Analyses in the Dis-persion of Mo dern H om o. Papers of the Peabody M useum of Ar-chaeology and Ethnology, H arvard University, vol. 79.Cambridge: Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology ,Harvard University.Hrdlidka, AleS1907 The Skeletal Remains Suggest ng or Attributed to Early ManIn No rth America. Sm ithsonia n Institutio n, Bureau of AmericanEthnology, Bulletin,3 3.Washington, DC: Govern ment Print ingOffice.1918 Physical Anthr opolog y. Its Scope and Aims: Its History andPresent State in Am erica. Am erican Journal of Physical An thro-pology1:3-23.

1920 Shovel-Shaped Teeth. American Journ al of Physical Anthr o-pology 3:187-193.1927 Anth ropolo gy of the American Negro: Historical Notes.American Journal of Physical Anth ropolog y 10:205 -235.

Hylander, Wil l iam C.1975 The Adaptive Significance of Eskimo Craniofacial Mo rph ol-ogy.InOro-Facial Gro wth an d Dev elopm ent. A. A. Dahlberg andT. M. Graber, eds. Pp. 129-16 9. The Hague: M out on.J ohns on , Ma t thew1999 Archaeological Theory: An Intro ducti on. Oxford: Blackwell.Kaplan, Abraham1964 The Con duct of Inquiry. Methodo logy for Behavioral Sci-ence. San Francisco: Chand ler.Komar, Debra1996 Identifying Racial Affinities in Skeletal Rem ains: Utilizing In -fracranial Non -Metric Traits and the R ubison Procedure to Deter-mi ne Racial Identity. Journ al of the Ca nad ian Society of ForensicScience 29(3):155-16 4.Kosiba, Steven2000 Assessing th e Efficacy and Pragm atism of "Race" Designa-tion in H um an Skeletal Identification:ATest of Fordisc 2.0 Pro-gram (Abstract). American Journal of Physical An thropo logySupplement 30:200.Larsen, Clark Spencer1987 Bioarchaeological Interpre tation of Subsistence Econ om yand B ehavior from Hu ma n Skeletal Remains. Advances in Ar-chaeological Method and Theory 10:27-56.Larsen, Clark Spencer1997 Bioarchaeology: Interpreting Behavior from the H um an

Skeleton. New York:Cam bridge University Press.Larsen, Clark Spencer, and George R. Milne r1994 In th e Wake of Con tact: Biological Responses to C onq uest.N ew York:Wiley-Liss.Lasker, Gabriel W.19 70 Physical Anthrop ology: Search for General Process and Prin-ciple. American Anthropolog ist 72:1-8 .Leathers , Amanda, Jamie Edw ards , and G eorgeJ.Armelagos200 2 Assessment of Classification of Cra nia Using Fordisc 2.0: Nu -bian X -Gro up Test (Abstract). American Journ al of Physical An-thropology Supplement 34:99-100.Levi-Strauss, C laude1952 Race an d History . Paris: Une sco.Lewin, Roger1999 Hu ma n Evolution: An Illustrated Intro duct ion. Oxford:Blackwell Science.Lieberman, Leonard, LarryT.Reynolds , and B la ine W. S tevenson1989 Race and Anthro pology :ACore Concept witho ut C onsen-sus. Anthro pology and Education Q uarterly 20(2):6 7-73.Lovejoy, Arthur O.1936 The Great Cha in of Being:AStudy of the History of an Idea.Camb ridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Lovejoy, C. Owen.1978 ABiomechan ical View of the L ocom otor Diversity of EarlyHominids . In Early Hom inid s of Africa. C. Jolly, ed. Pp. 403^ 129 .New York:St.Mart in 's .Lovejoy, C. Ow en, Robert P. Me nsforth , a nd G eorge J. Arm elagos1982 Five Decades of Skeletal BiologyAsReflected in the Am ericanJournal of Physical Anthropolog y.In AHistory of A mericanPhysical Anthropology, 1930 -1980. Pp. 329-3 36. New York: Aca-dem ic Press.Marks , Jonathan1995 Hu m an Biodiversity. Genes, Race and History. New York:Aldine de Gruyter.Mayr, Ernst1988 Toward a Philosop hy of Biology, Cam bridge , MA: HarvardUniv ersity Press.Meijer, Miriam Claude1997 Cam pus, Petrus (1722- 1789). In History of Physical Anth ro-pology: An Encyclopedia, vol. 1.F.Spencer, ed. Pp. 242-24 4. NewYork: G arland.Mensforth , Robert P., C. Owen Lovejoy, John W. Lal lo , and GeorgeJ. Armelagos1978 The Role of Con stitution al Factors, Diet, and Infectious Dis-ease in the Etiology of Porotic Hypero stosis an d Periosteal Reac-tions in Prehistoric Infants and Children. Medical Anthropology2(1,pt.2) :1-59.Mit t ler , Diane M., and D ennis P. Van Gerven1994 Development and Dem ographic Pat terns of Cribra Orbi ta l iain a Medieval Christian P opulatio n from Suda nese Nubia. Am eri-can Journal of Physical Anthrop ology 9 3(3):28 7-298 .


12/12

64 American Anthro pologist Vol. 105, No. March 2003Morton, SamuelG.1839 Crania Americana. Philadelphia: Dobson.1844 CraniaAegyptica. Philadelphia: Penington .Moss,MelvinO.1972 TwentyYearsof Functional C ranial Analysis. American Jour-nal of Orthodontics 61:4 79^ 85.Moss,Melvin O.,andR.W . Young1960 AFunctional Approach to Craniology. American JournalofPhysical A nthropology18:281-291.Neuman n, GeorgK.1952 Archeology andRacein the Am erican Indian.InArcheologyof Eastern United States.J.B.Griffin,ed.Pp. 13-34.Chicago: Uni-versity of ChicagoPress.1954a Archeology andRacein the American Ind ian. Y earbook ofPhysical Anthropology8:213-242.1954b Measurements and Indices of American Ind ian Varieties.Yearbook of Physical Anthropolog y,19528:243-255.No tt, JosiahC andGeorgeR.Gliddon1854 Typesof Man kind; o r, Ethnological Researches,Baseduponthe A ncient Monume nts, Paintings,, and C rania of Races,andupon Their Natural, Geographical, Philological, andBiblicalHis-tory. Ph iladelphia: Lippincott, Grambo.Otten, Charlotte1967 On Pestilence,Diet Natural Selection, and the Distributionof Microbial and H uman Blood Group Antigens and Antibodies.Current Anthropology8:209-226.Ousley, Steven D., and Richard L. Jantz1996 Fordisc2.0:Personal ComputerForensicD iscriminantFunc-tions.Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.Pearson, Karl,andA. Davin1924 On the Biometric Constants of the Hu man Skull. Biometrika16:328-363.Rose,JeromeC ThomasJ.Green,andVictoria G reen1996 NagpraIsForever:Osteology an d th e Repatriation of Skele-tons.AnnualReviewof Anthropology25:81-103.Rosenberg, KarenR.1992 Evolution of Modem Human Childbirth. Yearbook of Physi-calAnthropology 35:89-124.Rosenberg, Karen,andWenda Trevathan.1996 Bipedalism and Hum an Birth: The Obstetrical DilemmaRe-visited. Ev olutionary Anthropology 4(5):161-168.Ruff ChrisB.1984 Allometry between Length and Cross-Sectional Dimensionsof the Femur and Tibia in Homo Sapiens Sapiens. American Jour-nal of Physical An thropology 65(4):347-358.1993 Climatic Adaptation and Hominid Evolution: The Ther-moregulatory Imperative. Evolutionary Anthropology 2:53-60.2000 BodySize,Body Shape, and LongBoneStrength in ModernHum ans. Journal of Human Evolution 38(2):269-290.Ruff ChrisB.,andWilsonC.Hayes1983 Cross-Sectional Geom etry ofPecosPueblo Femora andTib-iaeABiomechanical Investigation:II.Sex,Age,SideDiffer-ences.American Journal of Physical AnthropologyRuff ChrisB.,Clark Spencer Larsen, and W ilsonC.Hayes1984 Structural Changes in the Femur with the Transition to Agri-culture on the Georgia Coast. American Journal of Physical An-thropology64(2):125-136.

Sibley, Lynn, George J. Armelagos,andDennisP.VanGerven1992 Obstetric Dimension of the TruePelvisin a Medieval Popula-tion from Sudanese Nubia. American Journ al of Physical Anthro-pology 89(4) :421^ 30.Slotkin, JamesS. ed.1965 Readings inEarlyAnthropology. Publication in Anthropol-ogy,40.NewYork:Viking Fund.Spencer, Frank1981 TheRiseof Academic Physical Anthropology in th e U nitedStates, 1880-1980: A H istorical Overview. Am erican Journal ofPhysical Anthropology 56:353 -364.1997 Anthropometry.InHistory of Physical Anthropo logy :AnEn-cyclopedia,vol. 1.F.Spencer,ed.Pp. 80-89.NewYork:Garland.Stocking, GeorgeW. Jr.1968 Race,Cu lture and Evolution:Essaysin the History of Anthro-pology. New York:FreePress.Stuart-Macadam, Patty1992 Porotic Hyperostosis: A New Perspective. American Journalof Physical Anthropology 87(l):39-4 7.Tague, RobertG.1989 Variation in PelvicSize betwe enMalesandFemales.Ameri-can Journal of Physical An thropology 80(1):59-71.1994 Maternal Mortality or Prolonged Grow th:Ageat Death andPelvicSizein Three Prehistoric Amerindian Populations. Ameri-can Journal of Physical Anthropology 95(l):27-4 0.Tague, Robert G.,andC.Owen Lovejoy.1986 ObstetricPelvisof A.L.288-1(Lucy).Journal of Hum anEvo-lution 15(4):237-255.Torroni, An tonio , Chiara Rengo, Valentina G uida, Fulvio Cruciani,Daniele Sellitto, Alfredo Coppa, Fernand o Luna Calderon, BarbaraSimionati, GiorgioValle,Martin Richards, Vincent M acaulay,andRosaria Scozzari2001 Do the FourCladesof theMtDNAHaplogroupL2 EvolveatDifferentRates?A merican Journal of Hum an Genetics69(6):1348-1356.Tylor, Edward Bu rnett1881 Anthropology:AnIntroduction to the Study of Man andCivilization,vols.1-2.London:Watts,vanderKlaauw,C.J.1945 CerebralSkullandFacialSkull. Archives NeerlandaisesdeZoologie 7:16-38.

1952 Functional Com ponen ts of the Skull.LongIsland NY: E. J.Brill.Van Gerven, Den nis. P., George J. Armelagos, and A rthur Rohr1976 Con tinuity and Ch ange in Cranial Morphology of Three Nu-bian Archaeological Popu lations. Man 12:270-277.Van Gerven, DennisP.,MaryK.Sandford, an d JamesR.Hummert1981 Mortality and Culture Change in Nubia's BatnElHajar. Jour-nal of Hum an Evolution 10:395-108.Wash burn, Sherwood L.1951 The New Physical Anthropology. T ransactions of the NewYork Academy of Science, 213(7):298-30 4.1953 TheNew Physical Anthrop ology . Yearbook of Physical An-thropology 7:124-130.White, Leslie A.1965 Anthropology1964:Retrospect andProspect.A merican An-thropologist 67:629-637.Wood,J.M., G.R.Milner, H. C. Harpending,andK.M. W eiss1992 The Osteological Paradox: Problems of Inferring PrehistoricHealth fromSkeletalSamples. Current Anthropology33:343-370.

Documents

Clase 1 a Century of Skeletal Biology and Paleopathology