armelagos et al. a century of skeletal pathology

8/2/2019 Armelagos Et Al. a Century of Skeletal Pathology

1/13

A Century of Skeletal Biology and Paleopathology: Contrasts, Contradictions, and Conflicts

Author(s): George J. Armelagos and Dennis P. Van GervenSource: American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 105, No. 1, Special Issue: BiologicalAnthropology: Historical Perspectives on Current Issues, Disciplinary Connections, and FutureDirections (Mar., 2003), pp. 53-64Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the American Anthropological AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3567313 .

Accessed: 26/10/2011 14:22

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Blackwell Publishing andAmerican Anthropological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,

preserve and extend access toAmerican Anthropologist.
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=anthrohttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3567313?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3567313?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=anthrohttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black


2/13

GEORGE J. ARMELAGOSDENNIS P. VAN GERVEN

ACenturyfSkeletalBiology ndPaleopathology:Contrasts, ontradictions,nd ConflictsABSTRACT For he irst alf f he 0th entury,iologicalnthropologytagnatedn state nwhich acialypologyas tsmajortheoreticalndmethodologicalocus.n1951, herwoodWashburnroposedhe newphysicalnthropology"hatwouldmove io-logical nthropologyeyond escription.ashburnepositionedt nto science hat ocused nprocess,heory,ndhypothesisest-ing.The ommitmentoa process-orientediologicalnthropologyas been low, ut here as beenprogress.ioculturaltudiesandfunctionalnatomyaveproducedmore ynamiccience haracterizedyhypothesisestingnd heightenedoncern or au-sality. nfortunately,returno historicalarticularismas imitedrogress.n ncreasingnterestnforensicpplicationndresur-gent nterestnmeasuresfpopulationistancesndmigrationsepresentsreversiono an earlier escriptiveast. Keywords:adaptation,steology,volution,istory]

There s no present r future,nlythepast happeningover ndover gain-Eugene O'Neill

HUMANSKELETONS EPRESENTNSWERS,nd

the goal of osteology s to frame he questions.There re mportant uestions hat ncient keletonswillnot answer, nd there are unimportant uestionsthattheywill.Thequest, fcourse,hasalwaysbeen to discovermeaningful uestions--questions entral to knowledgeand thehumancondition, olvablethrough heanalysisof human skeletal emains. he search ontinues nd thestakes rehigh.We aresearching ornothingess thantheidentity f our science definedby that small space inwhich hepossiblemeets hemeaningful.The space,ofcourse,s an ever hanging andscapeofpossibilities.steologistsnce limited o simple echniquesofcountingnd measurementre now armedwith hemi-cal assay techniques,maging echnology,nd multivari-ate statisticsrograms orhigh-speed esktop omputers.Studiesof biologicaldistanceand multivariatemorpho-metricsompeteforournal pacewithneutron ctivationanalyses and dietaryreconstructions. ew techniqueshave ed to newquestions nd reconsiderationf old ones.This volatilemix of old and new defines he contrasts,contradictions,nd conflicts f our time,and this also

leads to an importantnsight.Wherewe aretoday sverymuch reflectionfwherewe have been.It is interesting,hen,thatosteology, science di-rected omuchto thepast,hasoften ailed o reflect n itsown. Putsimply, n understandingf skeletalbiology'shistorymay helpus evaluatethe mportance ftheques-tionswe ask andmethodswe apply oday.Our interest ollowsn the tradition f earlier tudiesbyGabriel asker1970)and C. OwenLovejoy t al. (1982).Likethem,we intend o explore heapparent isconnec-tionbetween hequestions sked nd thetechniques m-ployed by contemporary steologists. n our view, thepromise f a "newphysical nthropology,"riven ytheconvergencef newmethods pplied o newquestions, asfailed o take solid hold in osteology. hediscipline indsitself wash in new and increasinglyophisticatedech-niquesappliedtooldquestionswith oots eep nthepastbutwithittlemportanceocontemporarynthropology.

We, therefore,ave several bjectives n thisarticle.We firstxamine theconceptofrace and racialdetermi-nismthatdroveboth theearliest uestions s well as theearliestmethods fosteology.We thenconsider he trans-formationfosteologynto a newscienceofskeletal iol-ogy armedwithnew methods nd directed owardnewwider-ranginguestionsofprocess nd causality. inally,we discussthediscipline's etreat ackto a neoracial p-proach nd with t a resurgentnterestn the methods fdescription.AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST05(1):53-64. COPYRIGHT? 2003, AMERICANANTHROPOLOGICALASSOCIATION


3/13

54 AmericanAnthropologist * Vol. 105, No. 1 * March2003PRELUDETO 20TH-CENTURY ACIAL TUDIESIt s a capitalmistake otheorize efore ne has data. n-sensibly nebegins otwist acts o suit heories,nsteadoftheories o suitfacts.

-SherlockHolmes,A Scandal nBohemiaTo consider ny aspectof early anthropology,nd,mostparticularly,steology, emandsa considerationfrace.Questions f racewere ntwined n all aspects fthediscipline'sbeginnings. laude Levi-Straussescribedn-thropology'soriginal in" as themisconceptionhatracewas essential n understanding hat has been termed he"productionfcivilization"1952:1-3).Anthropologyaswrestledwith the questionof race as a tool forunder-standing ehavior ormuchof tshistory. ven as anthro-pologymovedbeyondracialdeterminism,aceremaineda coreconcept Lieberman t al. 1989) and continued sthe primarymethodforexplaininghumanvariation n

both iving ndancientpopulations.The roots fthe raceconceptrun muchdeeper hananthropology. crossthe millennia of recordedhistory,race has beenan amalgamation fobserved iologicaldif-ferencesnterpretedhroughhe ensofcultural rejudice.Forexample,the Egyptians,s early s the 14thcenturybeforeChrist, ssignedhumansto four olor categories.Redrepresentedhemselves, ellow heirAsian nemies otheeast,white hepeopletothenorth,ndblack heAfri-can populations o the south.Prejudices ssociatedwithskin olorwere argely olitical.When ight-skinnedulersheld power, heBlackswerethe "evil raceofIsh."WhenBlacksruled,Whiteswere thepale, degraded aceof Ar-vad" (Gosset1963:4).In the centuries efore hrist,Greek hilosophersn-visioned scala naturaelongwhich ll theproductionsfnature ould be arrayedn anupwardprogressionromn-animatematterhroughhevarieties fhumanityo God(Mayr1988:420). Bythe 18thcentury,he scala naturaebecametemporalizednto the"the GreatChain ofBeing"(Lovejoy1936: ch. 1),andraceonceagaintook tsplace nthis cheme.Theplacement fhumans longtheChainofBeingwas enhanced n the1790sbyPetrus ampers's e-velopmentof the facialangle.The lowestraceshad themostprojectinganimalistic) aceswhile thehigher aceshad flatter aces.The ideal was the flat acerepresentednGreco-RomantatuaryMeijer1997:242).It is not surprisinghatbiologicalhierarchies ein-forcedbehavioralhierarchies. orexample,Carolus Lin-neaus classified acial ypes hat nhabited he four egionsof the earth ssociatedgeographically ith humors hateffected ehavior Stocking 968:5). Essentialisthinkingofthe timeargued hatthefourhumors hat nfluencedbehaviorblood,phlegm, lackbile,yellow ile)werekeyedtogeographicocality:American ndianshad reddishkin,were holeric,nd regulated ycustom;Africans ad blackskin, latnoses,werephlegmatic,nd governed y caprice;Europeanswerewhite, anguine,muscular, nd governed

by aw (Slotkin 965:177-178).Indeed,while we think fLinnaeus odayforhisbiological onstructs, arks 1995)has convincingly rgued hatwhen tcameto humanity,Linnaeus was more concernedwithexplainingbehaviorthanunderstandingiology.Two central deas came into sharpfocusduring hisperiod-races were real and races wererankable.Theseideas breathed ife ntoan old question:Where did racescome from? id human raceshave a monogenic r poly-genicoriginGreene1959:ch. 8; Harris 968: ch.4)? Poly-genists, uch as the French hilosopherVoltaire nd theU.S. scholars ouisAgassiz,amuelG. Morton1839, 1844),and JosiahNott and GeorgeGliddon 1854) believed ntheseparate rigin f races as "primordialypes."Othersmaintained he viewexpressed ySaintAugustine mil-lennium arlier:Wemay ear fmonstrousaces-people hohave neeye n themiddle f their oreheads,eoplewithnomouths, eoplewithdog-like eads .. but whoever sborn man,hats, rational ortalnimal,omatterwhatunusualppearancee presentsncolour,move-ment,ound,or ow eculiare s n ome ower..,noChristianandoubt hat e pringsromhat neproto-plast.Gosset963:6]Skeletal iology oundtsplace n thedebate nd nsodoing fueled love affair etweenracescienceand theskull. Morton 1844) measuredcrania from round theworld n an attempt o both rankraces nd determine heantiquity f racialtypes.Differencesn features uch ascranial capacityappearedto have greatantiquity nd,thus, upported olygenesis. od, tappeared, ad creatednot one humanityutmanyunequalkinds.JohannFriedrich lumenbach toodsquarely n theside ofmonogenesis utwas no lesscommittedo rank-ing. The monogenist iew simplyrequired vidence fordegeneration romGod's original reation.His approachhad bothdiachronic ndsynchroniclements. iving aceswerecategorizedntoone offivecolorcategoriesblack,African, ethiopisea;1 rown,Malayan,O-tahetae;white,Caucasian,Georgianie; ellow,Mongolian,Tungusae; ndred,American, aribaei).Correspondingranialfeatureswere hen dentifieds a meansfor racingacial ncestries.Referringoancient ndmodernrania, lumenbachtates:Whenkullsf heMongolian,merican,aucasian, a-lay,and Ethiopian aceswere viewedtogether.. theCaucasian as een o have hemost eautifulnd ym-metrical orm.. in likemanner, hewhite olorof theCaucasiankinwas henormrom hich egenerationo-ward arkerhades ad taken lace. Greene959:224,emphasisdded]This notion ofracialorigins,nd with t idealizedra-cialtypes, itwell withbiblical nterpretations.ndeed,de-generationistsuch as Blumenbachmaintained strictlytheological iewofcreationwith White ace Adam)cre-ated n God's image.AsCaucasiansexpanded ntonewre-gions, theywereexposedto environmentallements ndcultural actors hat caused degeneration rom primor-dial type oform ewraces.Degenerationxplainedwhat


4/13

Armelagosand Van Gerven * A Century fSkeletal Biologyand Paleopathology 55was clearly iewed s botha biologicalwhite odark) ndsocial civilized osavage)fallfrom race.Two intellectual vents,the development f evolu-tionary heoryfter 859 and thediscoveryf Mendelismin 1900,had the potential o force reevaluation ftheraceconcept.Thatpotential,fbornwithDarwin nd thegene,was stillborn.While Darwinism nded the mono-genesis-polygenesisebate in favorof a new scientificmonogenesis, egenerationistsimply urned heir heoryupsidedown. The fall fromAdamsimply ecame an as-centfrom heape.In this ense, t s notsurprisinghat acial eterminismcontinuedoprevailnthepost-Darwinianra.Roger ewinechoes thispoint,

Inequalityf races-with lacks n the bottomndwhitesn the op-was xplainedways thenaturalr-der f hings:efore859 s theproductfGod's rea-tion, nd after859 s theproductfnaturalelection.[1999:3]The quicknessbywhich suchdiverse ields s medicine,anthropology,ducation, ociology,nd paleontologyentsupport o "proven"racial nferiorityhowsthat racismand racialhierarchiesontinued o be an integral artofthe ntellectuallimate fter arwinHaller1971:xi-xii).Therecan be no questionthat the intellectual hiftfrom acialdegenerationo evolutionwas important orosteology, ut notfor he reasons raditionallyiven Ar-melagoset al. 1982). Evolutionism id not shift cienceaway fromLinnaean taxonomybut actuallyreinforcedtaxonomicdescriptionsnd definitions. axonomybe-came themethodfor reating hylogeny.his wasno lesstruefor he study frace.Racialtypologiesweresimplycast n theform fphylogeniess metaphors or ace his-tory.Thus taxonomy, s an inherentlytatic,preevolu-tionary oncept,did not give way to evolutionism fter1859; rather,volutionismecamecast ntheform ftra-ditionaldescriptiveistoricismArmelagostal. 1982).Post-Darwiniansteologywasfar rom eady oaban-don race.At a timewhen archaeology nd paleontologywere ontributingittlemore hancurios, hecomparativestudy frace seemed heonlywaytoreconstructur evo-lutionary ast. In an age with fewfossils, rimitiveacesbecame"livingfossils" nd wereviewedquiteliterallysevolutionaryurvivalsf the various tages hroughwhichmore "advanced"raceshad evolved.The keywas findingsome cranial trait or combinationof cranial traitsbywhich a growing umber fracescould be classified ndranked nto n evolutionary ierarchy.To thisend,therewas a rapid proliferationfmeas-urements nd instrumentsoncernedwith racial assess-ment. Paul Brocadeveloped manyoftheanthropometricinstrumentsnthe ate 1880s. He definedmanyofthe cra-nial landmarks hat were essential n establishingmeas-urement tandards. tandardization as thegoal of con-ventionsheld in Germany,Monaco, and Geneva in thelate 1800sto 1900s. In 1934,an internationalgreement

resolved national differencesn measurementsSpencer1997),giving furthermpetus odescription.The methods fanthropometryailed o provide n-swers o eventhemost basicquestions:Howmanyracesare there?What is theirrelativeranking?Race scienceneededa newapproach, nd thepromise ayin the newscience fgenetics. he impact fgenetics ad to waitun-til thedevelopment f a synthetic heory f evolution nthe 1930s.Most importantly,eneticsdid less to challengetheraceconcept hanspawnthequestfornew and more ci-entific acial traits. n this context, volutionary heoryworked gainsta genetic-racial pproach.The problemwas this: f racialcategorieswere to be miniphylogenies,the traits hosen must eflect hatDarwin alled"propin-quityofdescent."However,f he traits sed to build thephylogeny ereevolving,hen imilarity ayormaynotreflectpropinquityfdescent." imilaritiesould reflectparallelismsndevolutionaryonvergence.Ifnonadaptivetraits ould be found and linkedtospecific acialgroups, henrace-sciencend classificationcould be usedto establish acialhistories.Morethanever,race-science ecamethemeans ouncover ulture istory.And, ronically,nits earch ornonadaptive raits,steol-ogybecameantievolutionary.THEFIRSTFIVEDECADES OFTHE20TH CENTURYDuringthe first alfof the 20thcentury, iologicalan-thropology as shapedbythecontributionsf FranzBoas(Baker1994),AlelHrdli'ka Blakey1997),and EarnestA.Hooton Spencer 981).Boas and Hooton were nstrumen-tal in establishing cademic anthropologyt Columbiaand Harvard, hileHrdli'kabuilt he DivisionofPhysicalAnthropologyntheNationalMuseum fNatural istory.Questionsof culturehistory,nd thehistory f hu-man races,were of central mportance o anthropology.Hooton and Hrdli'ka envisioned a historicalprocessdriven ythe forces fhumanmigrations,iffusion,ndracialadmixture,nd for ach thekeyto unlocking hathistory ayin thebones ofantiquity. heir uestfor ul-turehistoryntertwined ith heconstant bband flow fhumanraces came to definemuchofosteology's ole nphysical nthropology.Inthecase ofBoas,histhoughtsn race ndhisoppo-sition o racial constructs f the timeweremixed at best.On thepositive ide,he criticized he mostbasic aspectsracial ypology. e askedsimplebut mportant uestions.Forexample,how could the averagerepresenthe normwhen all averages re derived romhe sum of deviations?How could we accept hefixityf races f raits uch as ce-phalic ndex themost sacredof racialtraits) hangedbythemagnitude fa race n one generation,swas demon-strated y Boas (1912) in a classiccomparison fJewishand Sicilian mmigrantsnd theirU.S.-born hildren? fraces re n a constant tate ftransformation,ow canwe


5/13

56 AmericanAnthropologist * Vol. 105,No. 1 * March 2003everknow theirnumberor hope to establish rankingamong hem?Boasalso launched sustained ttack gainst ttemptsto linkrace and cultural chievement.He was a majorforcen thepromotion fracial qualityBaker1994).Hiscriticismf evolutionistsuch as L. H. Morganand E. B.Tylor ed him to a strong ntievolutionarytance Harris1968) that repelled ll aspectsof evolutionary hought.Thus,for ll ofhis positive ontributionso modern n-thropology,isantievolutionaryositionwas overwhelm-ingand lefthis students ndfollowers ithfew uestionsto askbeyondquestions fdiffusion,nd fewmethods oapplybeyonddescription.Hrdlieka'smajor goal at thebeginning f thecenturywas to establish n institute f biological anthropologysimilar o thatfoundedbyBroca n France.When his ef-fortswerethwartedBoas was a majorforcen impedingfunding), e movedto establish he museum as a majorresearchnstitution. rdli'ka succeeded n transformingthe Smithsonian'sNationalMuseum of NaturalHistoryinto a majorforcen skeletal iology nd built a vastcol-lection f skeletal emains.Hrdli'ka's 1907) earliest ontributiono skeletal iol-ogywas thesystematicnalysis fNewWorld keletalma-terial. he datawere sed to refutelaims f pre-Pleistoceneoccupationof the New World. He spenta considerableportion f his later ifeexamining he Asiaticorigins fNativeAmericans. heseworks ed him to field tudies nAlaskaand Aleutian slands that established he shovel-shaped ncisor s a racialhallmarkinkingAsian and NewWorldpopulationsHrdli'ka1920).HrdliEka's reatest ontribution as the founding ftheAmericanournalfPhysical nthropologyAJPA)n 1918.The journalwas establishedwith the blessingof RobertLowie, hen-editorf theAmericannthropologistAA), ndHrdlieka'sditorship ould lastfor 4 yearsGlenn1997:59). His visionwas made clear nthe nauguralssue:Theparamountcientificbjectivef hysicalnthropol-ogy sthe radualompletion,n collaborationith heanatomist,he hysiologist,nd he hemist,f he tudyof thenormal hiteman iving nder rdinaryondi-tions.[Hrdlieka918:18]Twelveyears ater,Hrdliekapearheaded he effortoorganize heAmerican ssociationfPhysical nthropolo-gistsAAPA).Onlyeightprofessionalhysical nthropolo-gistswereamongthe 18 anthropologistshatcomprisedthe 85 chartermembers f the association. Anatomistswere he argest rofessional roupwith 7members.Caucasianbiologywas the norm gainstwhich otherraceswere obecompared. o this nd,Hrdliekaxpressedconcernregardinghe rudimentarytateof racialstudies(Blakey1987:10), and this was no idle concern. WhereBoas arguedfor heindependence frace, anguage, ndculture, rdliEkaawraceas a force fnature haping ndconstraininghe progress f culture. n his own words,"The realproblem ftheAmerican egro ies n hisbrain,and it would seem, therefore,hat thisorganabove all

otherswould have received cientificttention"HrdliEka1927:208-209).While Boas'sandHrdliEka'sccomplishments ere e-gion,Hooton,a classicist, rained he first eneration fleaders nphysical nthropology. ooton trained evenofthe eight presidents f AAPA erving rom1961-77. Asgreat s his teachingwas,his research eflects he contra-dictions f thepast.Formany,The ndians fPecosPueblo(1930) laid the foundation ormodern keletal iology. nit, Hooton used an epidemiological pproachthat fore-shadowedmodernpaleopathology.His innovative se ofsimple tatisticsuchas percentage requencies ould notbecome commonfor nother 30 years.He was a primemovern interdisciplinarynterpretationsased on a solidknowledgeof host, pathogen,and environmental ela-tionships.At the same time,he workedwithblindersmposedbya racialtypological pproach.Fixedracialtraitswererealityn hisview, nd thepresence f all such traits e-quiredan explanation n strictlyacial-historicalerms.For example, the presence of Negroidracial featuresamongthe IndiansofPecosPueblo ed to a preposteroustheory n whichhe envisioned"pseudo-Negroid" ypesmaking heirwayfrom orthwest frica,cross heBeringstraits,nd thendownto Pecoscarryinga minor nfusionofNegroidblood ... withthem" (Hooton 1930:356). Sadly,Hooton's innovative approach to paleopathologyre-mained footnoteohistory hilehis racial ypology ap-tured he nterest fmanyresearchers.To his credit,Hootonspearheadedwhathas been de-scribed s the"most ophisticateddatacrunching' pera-tion that nthropologistsad seen until he1950s" Giles1997:500).The StatisticalaboratorytHarvard,quippedwith tate-of-the-artBMcomputers, as the forerunnerfdata analysisthat transformediological anthropology.The new nstrumentationidnot,however, esultnmoreinnovative esearch.W. W. Howells 1954, 1973, 1989),Hooton'ssuccessor tHarvard,ontinuedhis egacy f de-scriptiveypology.SKELETAL IOLOGY N THEMODERN ERA:LIFEAFTER HE1950sThetestof a first-ratentelligences theability o holdtwoopposed deas n mind t the same time nd still e-

taintheability o function.-F. ScottFitzgerald,heCrackUpCircumstantial vidence s a very rickyhing. t mayseemto pointvery traighto one thing, ut fyoushiftyour wnpointofview little, ou mayfind tpointingin an equally uncompromisingmannerto somethingentirelyifferent.-SherlockHolmes,TheBoscombe alleyMystery

Theearly 950s can be seen as a watershed or iologi-cal anthropologyn generaland osteology n particular.


6/13

Armelagosnd Van Gerven* ACenturyf SkeletalBiologyndPaleopathology 57Discovery f the double helix set the stagefor nthropo-logicalgenetics,nd population tudies egantomake n-roads. But osteologicalstudiescontinuedto reflect heconflictsnd contradictionsf times ast.In 1952,GeorgNeumann's"Archeologynd Raceinthe American ndian" ppeared nJames .Griffin'srche-ologyfthe astern nited tates1952).While he book de-velopednewgroundnU.S.archaeology, eumann's on-tribution1952) providednothingmore hanan old-timetreatise n racial ypology. ranial ypes uch as the Lenidand Walcolid reified ace and reaffirmedhe use of cra-niometrys a toolfor acial-historicaleconstructions.etNeumann's hapters1954a,1954b)were onsidereduffi-cientlymportanto be publishedn the YearbookfPhysi-calAnthropology.The linkage etweenNeumann nd typologys in nosensea stretch.He was described y a close associateas"the astandbestof thetypologists"Hall 1997:73 ),whowas able tobridge hegapbetween ypologicalnd popu-lational paradigms Hall 1997). The so-calledbridgetopopulation tudywas apparentlyasedon his use of argecollectionsover10,000total). n reality, population p-proachexistsnowhere n thework, nd two of his typeswerebased on fewerhan20 skulls.It is stunning o realize hat yearbeforeNeumann'streatise,he Yearbookublished herwoodL. Washburn's(1953) "The NewPhysicalAnthropology"-an ssayorigi-nally published n 1951 thatbecamea manifesto or hemodern ra Washburn 951).Washburnresented prom-iseof a "newphysical nthropology" rofoundlyifferentfrom he old. Wherethe "old physical nthropology"e-mained ocked nendlessdescription,ew theoretical er-spectiveswoulddominate henew. Most mportantly,y-pothesis testingbased on conceptsof adaptationandevolutionwouldbe the hallmark fmodern esearch.The momentwas right ornew data and a new ap-proach,and William C. Boyd'sGeneticsnd theRacesofMan (1950) seemedto provideboth.Boydsaw the bloodgroups s a panacea for nthropologicalesearch. heir n-heritancewas understood nd theirfrequenciesould bemeasured withprecision.They could be studiedobjec-tivelywithout heprejudice ssociatedwithfeaturesuchas skin olor.Additionallynd mostessentially,heywerenonadaptive. hus the old tookroot n thenew.

From hevery utset,Boydviewed theblood groupsas unlikely argets fnatural election nd, thus,ofgreatpotentialfortracingpopulationmovements nd recon-structinghistoricalconnections among human races.Rather hanseeingthebloodgroups s an opportunityobreak new conceptual ground,Boydsimplyreplaced noldosteological pproachwith newgenetic ne.Boydspecificallyargeted steology n methodologi-cal grounds.He argued hat t s difficulto study keletalmorphologyn the livingbecause bones respondrapidlyto environmentalnfluences. heirgenetics s complex,and the oldmeasurements ereneverogically onceived.Boyd,n short,sserted hat steologywaspass&.

Ironically, oyd's "cutting dge" geneticresearch e-mained as devotedto description nd typology nd ascommitted o the searchfornonadaptiveracial)traits stheosteology e decried. venwhenthebloodtypeswereshown obe adaptiveBuettner-Janusch960;Otten1967),researchersontinued o use themas racialmarkers.heysimply ombinedmultiple lood types Edmonson1965)in an attemptosomehow ancelevolutionarynfluences.We had littlemore han "new wine nold bottles."LIFEAFTER HE1950s: FUNCTIONAL ORPHOLOGYANDBIOARCHEOLOGYThepatternf disease or njuryhat ffectsnygroup fpeople is never matter f chance. It is invariablyheexpression f tressesnd strains o which heywere x-posed, a response o everythingn their nvironmentand behaviour.

-Calvin Wells,Bones, odies nd DiseaseIn spiteof Boyd'sview of skeletalbiologyas pass&,new theoretical evelopmentswerebeginning o emerge.A functional natomical pproach omorphologynd therise of bioachaeology providedthe stimulus.Develop-ments n theseareas increasinglyame to reflectWash-burn'sproscriptionsora new biological anthropology,andwithinta new skeletal iology.

FunctionalMorphologyThe tools used to understand unctionalmorphology avebeen availablefor ears.Manyof the statisticsssential orteasing ut functional elationshipseganbefore he 20thcentury.ndeed,skeletal emainsprovided n importantsource f data for hedevelopment fbothregressionndcorrelationechniques. t was statisticiansPearsonandDavin 1924) who used cranialmeasurementso distin-guishbetween organic" nd "spurious" orrelations. r-ganic correlationsmeasuredrelationships etweendis-tinctregionsof the craniawhile spuriouscorrelationsreflected edundantmeasureswithin the same cranial(functional)ystem. his distinction ould have laid thefoundation orfunctional raniology; owever,tsappli-cationremainedargelytatistical.Itwas not untildecades ater hatMelvinMoss 1972)and hiscolleagueR. W.Young MossandYoung1960)ex-tendedthe research f C. J.van der Klaauw 1945, 1952)bymodeling "functionalomponents" pproach o cra-nial morphology.n thismodel,cranial ystems uchasthe masticatory,eurological, nd visual were analyzedfunctionallyelative o the soft-tissuergans they sup-ported nd protected. unctional raniology rovidedpowerfuloolfor heanalysis fprehistorickulls.DavidS.Carlson, ennisP. VanGerven,ndcolleaguesmeasured rania from ncient Nubia usinga functionalcraniometricpproach (Carlson and Van Gerven1977,1979; Van Gerven t al. 1976). Theythen used discrimi-nant functionso identify atterns ffacial eduction nd


7/13

58 AmericanAnthropologist * Vol. 105,No. 1 * March2003cranio-facialvolution cross ometwelve housandyearsofNubianhistory. he biologicaldatawere then used todevelopa dietary ypothesis elating acial reduction othecultural volution f foodproductionndpreparationtechnologies.WilliamC. Hylander1975) applieda simi-lar approach to the analysisof Eskimocrania. In thissense,functionalmorphologyecamefertileroundforgrowing ioculturalpproach nskeletal iology.A shift way fromrace and descriptionwould notcome easily.Howellsrejected uch attempts.He stated,"Mypurpose s notthestudy fgrowth ut oftaxonomy,ofthevariation etween xisting ecent opulationsn thedry kull" 1971:210), even thoughhe admitted, we donot know whether ... (the) variation is of taxonomic, orfunctionalmportance"Howells 1973:3). What Howells(1973, 1989) providedwas a waytobendthepotential fdiscriminantunction tatistics o the will of old racialclassifications.In thissense,complex tatistics,ncludingmultivari-ate analyses, o notinsure nontypological pproach.R.E. Blackith nd R. A. Reyment1971) described hediffi-cultyofbreaking wayfrom descriptionnd typologyeven whenusing laboratetatisticalroceduresArmelagoset al. 1982:313-314).Typology ontinuesdespiteourun-derstandingfadaptation nd the processes fmorpho-logicalchangeconfirminghe"superficial ature f biol-ogy at the classificatoryevel" (Blackith nd Reyment1971:5).Functional nalyses fpostcranial emainshave beenless controversialincepostcranialmorphology as beenless central o racial classification.hus,while there remanyforensicmethodsforracialdeterminationf longbones (Dibennardo nd Taylor1983; Komar1996), therehavebeen extensive unctionalnalyses swell. For xam-ple,C. OwenLovejoy 1978) and C. B. Ruffndcolleagues(Ruff 984, 1993,2000; Ruffnd Hayes 1983; Rufft al.1984) havefound n importantinkbetween limate, o-comotion,subsistence, nd cross-sectional eometry fthefemurnd tibia.Lovejoyhasused theapproach o ad-dressquestionsof locomotion n earlyhominids whileRuffnd colleagueshave used theirdata to consider helinkbetween ctivity atternsn foodgettingnd the me-chanicalpropertiesfbone.

Evenfeaturesinkedmostclosely o forensic escrip-tioncan be a rich ourceof biocultural nalysis.The hu-manpelvishas beensubjected o a number f tudies hatprovidequalitative nd quantitative iscriminations e-tween male and femalepelves Bass 1995). However, hepelviscan be examined from n adaptiveperspectiveswell--onethatmodels ts role n birth ndbipedalismSi-bley t al. 1992;Tague1989,1994).For xample, ibley tal.'s (1992) study fancientNubianpelvesrevealedhighfrequenciesfpelviccontractionn females. hishas, inturn,ed to newquestions oncerningnfantmortalitytthe site. Could there be an interaction etweenpelvicmorphology, eonatal size, and infantmortality? he

question s intriguingiven hat hemodalage at death sbirth o six months mongthese ncientNubians.An obstetricpproach o pelvicmorphology as beenapplied to fossilremains s well. RobertG. Tague andLovejoy 1986) examinedthepelvisof A.L. 288-1 (Lucy)from this perspective nd with Karen Rosenberg ndWenda TrevathanRosenberg 992; Rosenberg nd Tre-vathan 1996) developeda broader volutionaryerspec-tiveon the birth rocessnearly ominids.BioarcheologyIn the 1950s,skeletalbiology nd archeologywerestag-nating nan era ofdescriptive articularismhat reatedmoribund tateforboth disciplines.The "new archeol-ogy"transformedrcheology ymoving tbeyond tsfixa-tion on descriptionnd culturaldiffusion. he new ap-proach (Binford 962, 1964, 1977; Binford nd Binford1968) embraced concernfor heways nwhich culturalsystemsthe technology,ocial,and ideological ystems)adaptedto their nvironments.his, n turn,ed archae-ologists oward hedevelopment fgeneralprinciples fadaptationthatcould be applied to both archeologicaland contemporaryultures.Hypothesis esting nd theapplicationof scientificmethodology ecame the hall-marks fthisnewprocess-orientedrcheology.Skeletal iologists, ropelled ythe "newphysical n-thropology," egandeveloping bioculturalpproachtotheanalysis f keletalemains hat aralleledndsupportedthetrendsnarcheology. hesedevelopmentsccurred ta time when anthropologywas a four-fieldiscipline.Physical nthropology asbecoming n interdisciplinaryand intradisciplinaryndertakingommitted o an adap-tive and evolutionary erspectiveften n a cross-culturalsetting.n this ense, keletal iology rovided imedepthtounderstandinghe daptiveprocess. keletal iologyn-corporatedmethodologyhat t haredwithprocessual r-cheologyto spawnbioarcheologyBuikstra 977; Larsen1987, 1997;for more omplete iscussion fthesedevel-opments, eeArmelagosnpress).Thepromise fbioarchaeologyequired hree actors:(1) a population erspective;2) a recognitionfculture san environmentalorce ffectingnd interactingithbio-logical daptation; nd (3) a method or estinglternativehypotheses hat nvolves he nteractionetween hebio-logical nd cultural imensions f daptation.Thisemergent iocultural iew embraced he notionthat a society's echnology,ocialorganization,nd evenits deology ouldplaya majorrole n inhibitingr creat-ingopportunitiesor iological vents uch as patternsfdisease. t is notsurprisinghat his newapproachfoundfertile roundin paleopathology Armelagos1997). Infact, hisrelationships so strong hatbioarcheologyndpaleopathology re linked n theminds of most skeletalbiologists.The traditional ocusofpaleopathology ad been thedifferentialiagnosisf pecificiseases uch stuberculosis,


8/13

Armelagosand Van Gerven * A Century f Skeletal Biologyand Paleopathology 59leprosy, nd syphilis, ut the approachwas inherentlylimited.Bones and teethdo not oftenrespondwiththekind of specificityecessary or clinicaldiagnostic p-proachto all diseases.Skeletal nd dentalremains o, ontheotherhand,record tress eaction o a vastarray f n-sults.Responses uch as trauma, atterns fgrowth nddevelopment,eriostealnflammation,namelhypoplasia,and differential ortalityan be used to ask a host of n-terestinguestions.Theirmeaningdoes notlie in thedi-agnosisof ndividual asesbut,rather,n their attern yage,sex, nd environmentalculturalndnatural) etting.Allthat s required or heir nalysis s a single priori s-sumption:Patternsf stress esponsevidencedn ancientpopulationsre theresult fsystematicnvironmentalorces.Thegoal of theanalysis s todevelopand testhypothesesconcerninghe forces nplay.Thepower fbioarchaeologyerives rom he inkagebetween rchaeologicalnd skeletal nalyses. his inkagehas made itpossible o answer ignificantuestions on-cerning headaptationof ancientpopulations.Examplesinclude theregional nvestigationsfDella Collins Cook(1979),JaneE. Buikstra1977), and ClarkSpencerLarsonandGeorgeR.Milner1994),as well as population-specificstudies fhealth and mortalityn relation o subsistence(Cohen and Armelagos1984), trade (Goodman et al.1992),socialstratificationGoodmanet al. 1995),politicalorganizationVanGerven t al. 1981),and contact Bakerand Kealhofer1996). As with functionalmorphology,bioarchaeology hifted he focusaway from implede-scriptionoward nalytical uestionsofbioculturaldap-tation and in situ evolution.The question s, giventhepromise fanalytical esearch, asour commitmento de-scription ctually ivenway?TheConflictGiven the successes of functional nd biocultural p-proaches, hecontinuing ttractionfsimpledescriptionis surprising.heconflict etween escriptionnd higher-level analytical functional nd biocultural) nalysesre-flects nmanyways he tensionbetween he new andoldphysical nthropology.his conflict asnotedbyGabrielLasker ome thirty ears ago (1970). In Lasker'sview,physicalanthropologywas little more than "the handmaiden to history"1970:1-2),with ittle nterestn ana-lytical nvestigationsf function,nd adaptation.Evenwhen such questions could be asked, descriptionre-mained hepreferredoal.Lovejoy t al. (1982) conducted content nalysis fAJPA decade later nd foundLasker's oncern o be wellfounded.While nalyticalesearchncreased rom 930-80,descriptivetudiesremained n the majority mong allpublications elated oosteology.For hepurpose f thisdiscussion,weexpandedLove-joy's survey o includetwo morerecent ive-yearamples(1980-84 and 1996-2000). Following Lovejoy and col-leagues,articleswere considered nalytical f they pro-

TABLE. Contentnalysisfhumansteologyrticlesn heAmericanJournalfPhysical nthropology,930-84 nd1996-2000.Modifiedand xtendedromovejoyt al. 1982.Osteology Analytical Descriptive1930-1939 36.8 13.5 86.51940-1949 33.7 21.1 79.01950-1959 42.0 29.7 70.3

1960-1969 44.3 35.4 64.61970-1979 51.3 44.1 55.91980-1984 55.0 43.0 57.01996-2000 56.0 43.0 57.0

posedand tested pecific ypotheses r ifthey ddressedissues of process,function, r attempted o place theanalysis nto a broader heoretical ontext see Table 1).Articleswere considereddescriptiveftheyfocusedpri-marily n description,ortingmethods, r identificationwithout lacing heresults ntoa broader heoretical on-text.Whatwe foundreaffirmsheconcerns xpressed yLasker ver30years go. If nything,ur urveyuggestsshift owardrather han awayfrom escription. urther-more, hepattern oes notappear obe changing.There s, however, certain oarseness o both oursand Lovejoy's urveys. he articlesncludedreflectll as-pectsofosteological esearchncluding aleontologyndprimate natomy. here s no question hatthehistoricaland theoretical ontext n whichtheyare framed s ex-tremely iverse.Forexample, he importance fdescrip-tion whenthesubject s theremains f a newfossil oesnotcompare asily o the contributionfyet notherde-scription f a well-knownesion in a modernhumanskeletal eries.Withthis imitationnmind,we conducted secondsurvey 1980-84 and 1996-2000) focusedentirely nmodernhuman osteologicalremains see Table 2). Wealso categorizedhearticlesntofour ategoriesccordingto theirmajor intellectual hrust(s). he categorieswereanalytical, escriptive, ethodological,nd racial. n casesinwhichtheresearch ad morethanone emphasis, uchas descriptivendracial, t was counted n more hanonecategory.hus thepercentageso not add to 100percent.Aswithosteologyngeneral, rticles evoted omod-ern humanosteology ave increased vertimerelative oall publicationsn the ournal.However, nlike he trend

for ll osteology esearch, he amountof descriptionnhumanosteology as ncreased y12percentompared oan increase f onlysevenpercent n analytical. he fre-quencyof articles evoted to methodology as droppedby26 percent,ndthose devoted o orutilizing acial ate-gories avedropped y14percent.These datasuggest everal hings f nterest. irst,n-terest n humanosteologysnotdeclining. hatsaid,theresearch s actuallybecomingmoredescriptivend rela-tively ess analytical. nterest n race has declined,butsuchanalyses re still bundant.The interestinguestionis this: fskeletal nalyses re moredescriptivehanever,yetat the sametime ess interestedn methodologynd


9/13

60 AmericanAnthropologist * Vol. 105,No. 1 * March2003TABLE . Contentnalysisf human steologyrticlesntheAmericanournalfPhysicalnthropology,980-1984nd 1996-2000.

Osteology escriptivenalytical ethod Race1980-1984 19% 59% 22% 43% 26%1996-2000 29% 71% 29% 17% 12%race,whatexactlys the nature fthework eingpublish-ed? Ironically,whilemany anthropologists ave decriedtheuseofrace, heraceconcept ontinues oprovide nereal, lthough imited, onceptualframework.lternativebioculturalnalyses ppearto havestalled, eaving pau-city f alternatives. sa result,manyosteologists ave re-turned o the old questions fracialhistoryoften ast nterms fbiologicaldistance),migration,nd diffusion.nthe case of paleopathology,nterest as returnedo theold questions f differentialiagnosis.The resurgencefdescription as also been encour-aged bytheemergencefnewtechniques ndtechnology.Washburn redicted hatthe newphysical nthropologywoulddevelopnewtechniques s part f ts dvancement.In fact, ewtechnologies aveoftenmpededratherhanpromoted newperspective.ndeed,muchof hepublish-ed workreflectswhat the philosopherAbrahamKaplan(1964) calls the aw ofthe nstrument,hat s,Give childa hammerndeverythingntheir orld eeds ounding. ivean osteologist CATscan, ndevery pecimen s scanable.THE CHALLENGEThepopulation s the astbastion fthetypologist.-C. Loring race

21st-centuryechnologyppliedto 19th-centuryiology[commentn theHumanGenomeDiversityroject]-Alan SwedlundThe challenges o skeletal iology ome fromwithinand beyondthediscipline. orexample,PublicLaw 101-601, theNativeAmerican ravesProtectionndRepatria-tion Act NAGPRA), as been a powerful xternal nflu-ence, but its impacthas differed romthatwhich wasanticipated.twasinitially elieved hat ollectionswouldbe lostand thatnew excavationswouldbe limited rpos-

sibly liminated ltogether. either utcomehas come topass,buttheconcern ed to action.Protocolsweredevel-oped (Buikstrand Ubelaker 994)and data were ollectedquicklyand systematically.ollectionsthat languishedunstudiedforyearswere carefully escribedusing newstandardizedechniques. n addition, nthropologistsol-laboratedwithNativeAmerican roupsnconducting ewexcavationsRoseet al. 1996).NAGPRA'smpactbeyond nthropology as inmanywaysmorenegative.Aperceptionfanthropologistshal-lenging herights fNativeAmericanso bury heir eadspread hroughoutheacademy.Thisperception as rein-forced yearliermages fosteologists sing raniologyo

support acial tereotypes romptedn editorial n Naturepromotinghe HumanGenomeDiversityroject:With hysicalnthropologynder cloud ortshabitfusingmeasurablekeletalndicessproxiesoress angi-ble attributescranialapacitys a measuref ntelli-gence, or xample),t would e bettero invest hatgoodwillheres n quite ifferentield.1995:183]At the same time, magesof forensic nthropologist"bonedetectives" eceived ositive lay n themedia.Os-teologistsrefrequentlyortrayeds keyfiguresnsolvingthe most ntractableases. The demandsof NAGPRA ndforensics re n manywaysthe same. The emphasis s ondescription ith a view to practical pplication.Researchand training ith ittle r no appliedvalue,2become sec-ondary ven ntheacademy.Currently,omethirty epartmentsf anthropologyofferrogramsnforensicnthropology.ven heNation-al Science Foundationhas jumpedon thebandwagonbyfeaturingforensic aleontology"n itsFY 2002 request o

Congress.The resulthas been a shift wayfromWash-burn's newphysical nthropology"ackto the traditionaltechniques f human dentification.nce againthediag-nosisof ge,sex, nd race reparamount. acialdiagnosti-cians,armed with new techniques nd technology,mapthe terrain f cranialmorphologymuchas their orebearsdid over centurygo. Indeed,confidencenthedry kullfor racial diagnosis is littlechanged from the time ofBlumenbach.OsteologistGeorgeW. Gill (2000) has goneso far s to proclaim reateronfidencen skeletal eaturesthan soft issueones. He says, I am moreaccurate t as-sessingrace from keletal emains han from ookingatlivingpeople standing eforeme" (2000). UnfortunatelyGill'sconfidence elies heobjective vidence.Goodman (1997) demonstratedhat the 85-90 per-centaccuracy laimedbyforensicnthropologistss seri-ouslymisleading.High evelsofaccuracy anbe achieved,butonlywhenthe skullsmeetextremelyimitingriteria.Forexample,Giles and Elliot's 1962) discriminantunc-tion formula s based on a referenceample of knowncomposition,nd itcan indeed achieve85-90 percent c-curacy. his evel ofaccuracys reached nlywhentestedagainst additional specimensfrom the same referencesample.Whenappliedto independent amplesofknowncompositionthetruemeasure f tssuccess), he methodis less than20 percentccurateGoodman1997)-a figurethathardly nspires onfidencen forensicnthropology'sability o race skullnotwithstandingill'sconfidence.Poorperformanceas not disabusedforensicnthro-pologist romelling he method.Fordisc .0 (OusleyandJantz1996) is a computer rogram esigned o diagnoseany skull nto one of Howell's geographicpopulations.The program, owever,s seriously lawed Kosiba2000).Whenappliedto a cranialfrom knownAfrican opula-tion Belcher t al. 2002; Leathers t al. 2002), somefiftypercentwereplaced n non-Africanategories.The failure s interestingfwe allow ourselveso thinkbeyondthe applied box. The program orced solution


10/13

ArmelagosndVanGerven* ACenturyfSkeletalBiologyndPaleopathology 61based on a prioriracial criteria resumed as all racialschemesdo) to delimit atterns freal humanvariation.Whatwe see withthe African est s the result fan as-toundingmismatch etween ctualcranialvariation ndthe variationmodeledby racial constructs. s we haveknownfordecades,so-calledracialtraits re nonconcor-dant,and theraceswegetare ittlemorethan a functionof thetrait r traitswe use. Sadly, heresponsehas beendirectedmore toward ixing heprogramhanfixing heapproach.The second challenge o skeletalbiologycame fromthepostmodernritique fscience n general.The rejec-tion of evolutionary heory, heories f cultural dapta-tion, s well as ecological nterpretations,ave cast a pallacrossmuch ofanthropologyJohnson 999). Changes narcheologyhave been profound.Bioarcheology as sur-vived the postmodern nslaughtbecause it has had ameans of objectively estinghypotheses.Biologicalout-comes n the form fpatternsfpathologynd morphol-ogyhavebeena majorfactorn maintainingn adaptiveand evolutionary erspective. orensic nthropology,e-scriptive y nature nd devoidof sociocultural ontent,has remainedargely ff hepostmodern adar creen. orthisreason,description ith an eyeto practical pplica-tion provides safe harbor orosteological esearch. heattractions indeed twofold.t is outside he netofpost-moderncritique, nd it enjoyswide appeal among thepublicat large.The result as been an evernarrowinge-search gendathatmany steologistsind omfortable.This s notto suggesthatbioarchaeologynd biocul-tural nalyses rebeyond egitimateriticism.ndeed, rit-ics are essential o a vibrant cience, nd harsh criticismshould not make osteologists imid. Forexample,J.M.Wood et al. suggestedhatbiocultural econstructionsuf-feredfromwhat theysaw as an "osteologicalparadox"(1992:345). Skeletonswith hemostpathologymayrepre-sentnot the sickestmembers f a population, s bioar-cheologists ontend,but,rather, he healthiest. he ra-tionale is simple. Long-lived (healthier) individualssurvive o accumulate hegreatest bundanceof skeletaldamage. In other words,paradoxically, ad skeletonsmeangood health. Whilethismayseem ogical, t is notnecessarilyhecase.

Likewise, orotichyperostosis,lesion nterpretedymostosteologistss a signofdisease,has been interpretedbyothers s a signofadaptation Stuart-Macadam992).Such conflicts nd contradictionso not threatenhe dis-ciplinenor aretheybeyondresolution.Goodman(1993)has usedmultipleines of evidence gainstWood's "para-dox" and intheprocess larifiedmany spects fbiocultu-ral research.R. P. Mensfortht al. (1978) demonstrateddirect elationship etweenporotichyperostosisnd sys-temic nfectionperiosteal eaction),nd Diane M. Mittlerand Van Gerven 1994) found significantink betweenthe lesion and reduced ife xpectancy. oth studies endstrongupport o thediseasehypothesis.

Many students,believingthat bioarchaeologyhasbeenmortally ounded, hy wayfrom oththe risk ndthe controversyypursuingmoreconservativeesearch.Ourpoint s this:Criticisms fbioarcheologynd biocul-tural econstructionso notrequire retreatack to race,descriptiveypology,nddiffusionism.heyrepresentp-portunitieso developand testalternative ypothesesnthe finestcientificradition. owever,here eems o be aforce hat drawsus back to descriptive istoricism. ur-rent nterestn mtDNA s reminiscent f interestn theblood groups halfcentury go. Expensivehightechnol-ogy researchhas the cache of cutting-edgecience.Butwhere smtDNA esearchaking s? Thequestions retheold ones of diffusion nd descent,groundedn a viewofculturehistory rivenbyancientmigrationsnd the ad-mixture f ancientpopulations.Forexample,one ofthemost celebrated tudies n mtDNA Cavalli-Sforzat al.1994) research s a study f the racialhistory fhumanpopulations.Questionsof in situevolution nd popula-tionadaptation emain s always ntithetical o themeth-ods at hand. Even as evidencegrows or heoperation fselection n mtDNA,we areassured, s we werewith theblood groups, hat all is well withstudiesof origin ndpopulation istanceTorronital. 2001).CONCLUSIONIt has been almostfour decades since Leslie A. White(1965) provided retrospectivend prospective iewofcultural nthropologyn his AmericanAnthropologicalAssociation AAA)Presidential ddress.Today,his con-cernsapplywithequal force o biological nthropology.White took ssuewith nthropology'sbsessionwith therepetitivenalysis f certain hings.He states:As henumberf xcavatedhiomoundsrSouthwest-ernpithousesncreases,hesignificancef one more"dig" ecreases;he aw f iminishingeturnsetsn...I am implyaisinghe uestionf he aw fdiminishingreturnss t hasbeen peratingnour ciencenrecentdecades. amraisinghe uestion:an culturalnthro-pologyo anything ore aluable ndsignificant,ndshouldt ryodo so? 1965:630]

We are imply sking his:As thenumber fdiagnosesand racial-biologicalistance chemes ncreases, oes thesignificancefyet nother iagnosis rdistance tudy i-minish?Does the lawofdiminishingeturnset n?Mostimportantly,an biological anthropology o anythingmorevaluable nd significant,nd should ttry?Weques-tion the need to publishthe report f anothersinglepathological pecimento understand he chronology rgeographyf a specific isease. s the search or rigins s-ing mtDNA nd discrete ental traits he best use of re-search ime nd research ollars?In White'sprospective iewofanthropology,e sug-gested hatwe had to addressproblemsmore relevant ocontemporaryociety.Whitewas notthe first oargueforan anthropologyhat is relevant o everydayife.Onehundred ndtwenty ears go,Edward .Tylor oncluded


11/13

62 AmericanAnthropologist * Vol. 105,No. 1 * March2003hisbookAnthropologyith, Theknowledgefman's ourseof ife, rom emote asttothepresent, ill notonly helpus forecast he future, ut mayguideus in our dutyofleaving heworldbetter hanwe found t" 1881:439).To meet thesegoals,we have to reclaim keletal iol-ogyas the meansto understandmorphologyrom func-tional perspectivend adaptation nd evolutionfrombiocultural erspective. his impliesan interdisciplinaryand intradisciplinarypproach hat s integrated ith ul-tural nthropology,rcheology, inguistics,nd other s-pectsofbiological nthropology.We believethat keletalbiologyhasmuch to offernunderstandingssues hat rerelevant o contemporaryociety.Rather hanbeingob-sessedwith onstructingacial lassification, e shouldbeexamining hebiological onsequencesofracialanalysis.Skeletal iology anhelpus understand he factorsnevo-lution hathave ed to theglobal patternsfemergingis-ease.Nutritionalroblemshat reaffectingevelopedna-tions nd theThirdWorld an be better nderstood roman adaptiveand evolutionary erspective fbioarcheol-ogy. Issues of inequality hat are a partof manyofthecontemporaryroblemshouldbe thefocus fbioarcheol-ogy. nequalityhad itsbeginningnourremote ast, ndweshouldbe able to chart ts ourse.Widening aps n so-cial,political, nd economic nequality eed tobe under-stood fromn adaptive ndevolutionaryerspective.Reclaimingphysical anthropology s anthropologywillrequire hatwe reevaluate urpast nd recast he fieldfor he future. he leading ournals n thefield,AJPA,A,and Evolutionary nthropologyave to take a more proac-tiveposition n promoting iscussion f what ourfuturesmaybecome. The start f a newcenturyhouldbe a goodtime obegin.GEORGE .ARMELAGOSepartmentofAnthropology,EmoryUniversity,tlanta, A30322DENNIS P. VANGERVEN epartment of Anthropology,Uni-versityfColorado,Boulder, O 80309NOTESAcknowledgments.ewish oacknowledgehecontributionsfJamesCalcagno,Alan H. Goodman,Clark penser arsen, ebraMartin,ynn ibley,ndBethanyurneror heir ommentsnearlierersions f his rticle.1. Thethird escriptoreferso cranial ype.2. We use appliedn the broader nthropologicalense. Forensicanthropologyas made significantontributionso issuesofhu-manrights.REFERENCES CITEDArmelagos,eorge .1997 Paleopathology.nHistoryfPhysicalnthropology:nEn-cyclopedia:ol. . F.Spencer,d.Pp.790-796.NewYork: ar-land.InpressBioarcheologysAnthropology.nArcheologysAnthro-pology. .Nichols ndS.Gillespie,ds.Arlington,A:Archeo-logical apersf heAmericannthropologicalssociation.

Armelagos,eorge., avid .Carlson,ndDennis . VanGerven1982 TheTheoreticaloundationsndDevelopmentf keletalBiology.nAHistoryfAmericanhysicalnthropology..Spencer,d.Pp. 05-328.NewYork: cademicress.Baker, renda ., nd LisaKealhofer,ds.1996 BioarchaeologyfNative mericansnthe panish order-lands.Gainesville:niversityress fFlorida.Baker,eeD.1994 Locationf ranz oaswithinheAfrican-Americantrug-gle.CritiquefAnthropology4(2):199-217.Bass,William1995 HumanOsteology: LaboratoryndFieldManual. th di-tion.Columbia:Missouri rchaeologicalociety.Belcher, obert,rankWilliams,ndGeorge .Armelagos2002 MisidentificationfMeroitic ubiansUsing ordisc.0 Ab-stract). mericanJournalfPhysicalnthropologyupplement34:42.Binford,ewisR.1962 ArchaeologysAnthropology.mericanntiquity28:217-225.1964 AConsiderationfArchaeologicalesearchesign.Ameri-canAntiquity9:425-441.Binford,ewisR., d.1977 For heoryuildingnArchaeology.ewYork: cademicPress.

Binford,ewisR., ndSallyR.Binford,ds.1968 NewPerspectivesnArchaeology.hicago: ldine.Blackith, .E., nd R.A.Reyment1971 Multivariateorphometrics.ewYork: cademicress.Blakey,MichaelL.1987 Skull octors:ntrinsicocial ndPoliticalias ntheHis-toryfAmericanhysical nthropologyith pecialReferenceto heWork fAle'Hrdlieka.ritiquefAnthropology(2):7-35.1997 Skull octors evisited:ntrinsicocial ndPolitical ias ntheHistoryfAmericanhysical nthropologyith pecial ef-erenceo heWork fAlelHrdlieka.nRace ndOtherMisadven-tures: ssaysnHonor fAshley ontagunHisNinetiethear.L.T.Reynoldsnd L.Lieberman,ds.Pp.64-95.DixHills, Y:General all.Boas,Franz1912 ChangesnBodily ormfDescendantsf mmigrants.Americannthropologist4:530-562.Boyd,William .1950 Geneticsnd heRaces fMan.Boston: ittle,rown.Buettner-Janusch,ohn1960 TheStudyfNatural electionndtheABO(H) nMan. nEs-saysn the cience fCulture. . E. DoleandR.Carnerio,ds.Pp.79-110.NewYork: rowell.Buikstra,ane .1977 BioculturalimensionsfArchaeologicaltudy: RegionalPerspective.nBioculturaldaptationnPrehistoricmerica. .L.Blakely,d.Pp.67-84.Athens: niversityfGeorgia ress.Buikstra,ane ., ndDouglasH.Ubelaker,ds.1994 Standardsor ataCollectionsrom uman keletal e-mains. ayetteville:rkansasrcheologicalurvey.Carlson, avidS., nd DennisP.VanGerven1977 MasticatoryunctionndPost-PleistocenevolutionnNu-bia.AmericanJournalfPhysicalnthropology6:495-506.1979 Diffusion,iological eterminismndBioculturaldapta-tion ntheNubian orridor. mericannthropologist81(3):561-580.Cavalli-Sforza,.Luca,PaoloMenozzi, ndAlbertoiazza1994 TheHistoryndGeographyfHumans enes. rinceton:Princetonniversityress.Cohen,MarkNathan,ndGeorge .Armelagos1984 Paleopathologyt heOriginsfAgriculture.ewYork: ca-demic ress.Cook,Della Collins1979 Subsistencease nd Healthn Prehistoricllinois alley:Evidence romheHuman keleton. edical nthropology3(1):109-124.Dibennardo, obert,ndJames .Taylor1983 Multiple iscriminantunction nalysisf ex ndRacenthePostcranialkeleton.nAmericanJournalfPhysical nthro-pology1(3):305-314.


12/13

Armelagosnd VanGerven* ACenturyfSkeletalBiologyndPaleopathology 63Edmonson,Monro1965 AMeasurementfRelativeacial ifferences.urrentn-thropology(2):167-198.Giles, ugene1997 Hooton, (arnest) (lbert)1887-1954).In istoryf hysi-calAnthropology:nEncyclopedia,ol.1. F. pencer,d.Pp.499-501.NewYork: arland.Giles, ugene,ndOrville lliot1962 Race dentificationrom ranialMeasurements.JournalfForensicciences :147-15 .Gill,GeorgeW.2000 Does Race xist? Proponent'serspective:BS,NOVA,Mysteriesf heFirstmericans.lectronicocument,http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/first/gill.html,ccessed ugust15,2002.Glenn, ames .1997 Americannthropologist.nHistoryfPhysical nthropol-ogy. .Spencer,d.Pp.59-60.NewYork: arland.Goodman,AlanH.1993 On the nterpretationfHealth rom keletal emains. ur-rent nthropology4(3):281-288.1997 Bredn heBone? he ciencesMar.-Apr.):20-25.Goodman,AlanH.,DebraL.Martin,ndGeorge .Armelagos1992 Health,conomic hange,ndRegionalolitical conomicRelations:xamplesromrehistory.ASCAJournal:51-59.

1995 TheBiologicalonsequencesf nequalitynPrehistory.Rivista iAnthropologiaRoma) 3:123-131.Gosset, homasF.1963 Race: heHistoryf n dea nAmerica. allas: outhernMethodist ress.Greene, ohn .1959 TheDeath fAdam.NewYork:Mentor ress.Griffin,ames ., d.1952 Archeologyf heEasternnited tates. hicago:UniversityofChicago ress.Hall,Roberta .1997 Neumann, eorg arl1908-1971).In istoryfPhysicalAnthropology,nEncyclopedia,ol. . F.Spencer,d.Pp.731-732.NewYork: arland.Haller, ohn .1971 Outcastrom volution. rbana: niversityf llinois ress.Harris, arvin1968 TheRise fAnthropologicalheory. ewYork: rowellndCompany.Hooton, arnest .1930 Indians fPecosPueblo: StudyfTheir keletal emains.NewHaven, T:YaleUniversityress.Howells,WilliamW.1954 TheCranial ault: actorsf ize ndShape.AmericanJour-nalofPhysical nthropology5:19-48.1971 ApplicationfMultivariatenalysisnCranio-FacialGrowth.nCranio-FacialrowthnMan.R.E.MoyersndW. M.Krogman,ds.Pp.209-218.Oxford:ergamon.1973 Cranial ariationnMan:AStudyyMultivariatenalysisofPatternsfDifferencemongRecent uman opulations.a-pers f he eabodyMuseum fArchaeologyndEthnology,ar-vardUniversity,ol.67.Cambridge, A:PeabodyMuseumfArchaeologyndEthnology,arvard niversity.1989 Skull hapes nd heMap:Craniometricnalysesn heDis-persionfModemHomo.Papersf hePeabodyMuseumfAr-chaeologyndEthnology,arvard niversity,ol. 79.Cambridge:eabodyMuseumfArchaeologyndEthnology,Harvardniversity.Hrdlieka,leS1907 TheSkeletal emainsuggestingrAttributedoEarly aninNorth merica.mithsoniannstitution,ureau fAmericanEthnology,ulletin,3.Washington,C:GovemrnmentrintingOffice.1918 Physicalnthropology:ts cope ndAims: tsHistoryndPresenttatenAmerica.mericanJournalfPhysical nthro-pology :3-23.1920 Shovel-Shapedeeth. mericanournalfPhysical nthro-pology :187-193.1927 Anthropologyf heAmericanegro: istorical otes.AmericanJournalfPhysical nthropology0:205-235.

Hylander,William .1975 TheAdaptiveignificancefEskimo raniofacial orphol-ogy.nOro-Facial rowthndDevelopment..A.DahlbergndT. M.Graber,ds.Pp.129-169. heHague:Mouton.Johnson, atthew1999 Archaeologicalheory: n ntroduction.xford: lackwell.Kaplan,Abraham1964 TheConduct f nquiry: ethodologyor ehavioralci-ence. anFrancisco:handler.Komar, ebra1996 IdentifyingacialAffinitiesnSkeletal emains: tilizingn-fracranialon-MetricraitsndtheRubison rocedureoDeter-mineRacialdentity.ournalf heCanadian ocietyfForensicScience 9(3):155-164.Kosiba, teven2000 Assessinghe fficacyndPragmatismf Race" esigna-tion nHuman keletaldentification:Test fFordisc.0Pro-gramAbstract).mericanJournalfPhysicalnthropologySupplement0:200.Larsen, lark pencer1987 Bioarchaeologicalnterpretationf ubsistenceconomyandBehaviorrom uman keletal emains. dvancesnAr-chaeological ethod ndTheory0:27-56.Larsen, lark pencer1997 Bioarchaeology:nterpretingehaviorromheHumanSkeleton. ewYork: ambridge niversityress.Larsen, lark pencer,ndGeorgeR.Milner1994 IntheWake fContact: iological esponsesoConquest.NewYork:Wiley-Liss.Lasker, abrielW.1970 Physical nthropology:earch or eneral rocessndPrin-ciple.Americannthropologist2:1-8.Leathers, manda, amie dwards,ndGeorge .Armelagos2002 AssessmentfClassificationfCrania sing ordisc.0:Nu-bianX-GroupestAbstract).mericanJournalfPhysicaln-thropologyupplement4:99-100.Levi-Strauss,laude1952 Race ndHistory.aris: nesco.Lewin, oger1999 Human volution:n llustratedntroduction.xford:Blackwellcience.Lieberman,eonard,arry .Reynolds,ndBlaineW. Stevenson

1989 Race ndAnthropology:CoreConcept ithout onsen-sus.AnthropologyndEducationuarterly0(2):67-73.Lovejoy, rthur.1936 TheGreat hain fBeing: Studyf heHistoryf n dea.Cambridge, A:Harvardniversityress.Lovejoy, . Owen.1978 ABiomechanicaliew f heLocomotoriversityfEarlyHominids.nEarly ominidsfAfrica..Jolly,d.Pp. 03-429.NewYork:t.Martin's.Lovejoy, . Owen,Robert .Mensforth,ndGeorge .Armelagos1982 Five ecades f keletal iology sReflectedntheAmericanJournalf hysical nthropology.blAHistoryfAmericanPhysical nthropology,930-1980. p.329-336.NewYork: ca-demic ress.Marks, onathan1995 Human iodiversity:enes, ace ndHistory.ewYork:Aldine eGruyter.Mayr, rnst1988 Toward PhilosophyfBiology. ambridge,A:HarvardUniversityress.Meijer,Miriam laude1997 Campus, etrus1722-1789).nHistoryfPhysical nthro-pology: nEncyclopedia,ol. 1.F.Spencer,d.Pp. 42-244.NewYork: arland.Mensforth,obert.,C. OwenLovejoy, ohnW.Lallo, ndGeorgeJ.Armelagos1978 TheRole fConstitutionalactors,iet, nd nfectiousis-ease n he tiologyfPorotic yperostosisndPeriosteal eac-tions nPrehistoricnfantsndChildren. edicalAnthropology2(1,pt. ):1-59.Mittler,ianeM., ndDennisP.Van Gerven1994 DevelopmentndDemographicatternsfCribra rbitaliain Medieval hristianopulationromudanese ubia.Ameri-canJournalfPhysical nthropology3(3):287-298.


13/13

64 AmericanAnthropologist * Vol. 105,No. 1 * March2003Morton,amuelG.1839 CraniaAmericana.hiladelphia:obson.1844 CraniaAegyptica.hiladelphia:enington.Moss,MelvinO.1972 Twentyears fFunctional ranial nalysis.mericanour-nal fOrthodontics1:479-485.Moss,Melvin ., andR. W.Young1960 AFunctionalpproachoCraniology.mericanournalfPhysical nthropology8:281-291.Neumann,GeorgK.1952 ArcheologyndRace ntheAmericanndian.nArcheologyof astern nitedtates.J..Griffin,d.Pp.13-34.Chicago:Uni-versityfChicago ress.1954a Archeologynd Race ntheAmericanndian. earbook fPhysical nthropology:213-242.1954b Measurementsnd ndices fAmericanndian arieties.YearbookfPhysical nthropology,9528:243-255.Nott, osiah .,andGeorgeR.Gliddon1854 Types fMankind; r, thnologicalesearches,ased pontheAncient onuments,aintings,ndCrania fRaces,nduponTheir atural, eographical,hilological,ndBiblical is-tory. hiladelphia:ippincott,rambo.Otten, harlotte1967 OnPestilence,iet,Naturalelection,nd heDistribution

ofMicrobialndHumanBloodGroupAntigensndAntibodies.Currentnthropology:209-226.Ousley, teven .,andRichard .Jantz1996 Fordisc.0: Personal omputerorensiciscriminantunc-tions. noxville: niversityf ennessee ress.Pearson, arl, nd A. Davin1924 On theBiometriconstantsf heHuman kull. iometrika16:328-363.Rose, erome .,Thomas .Green, nd Victoria reen1996 NagprasForever:steologynd heRepatriationf kele-tons.Annual eviewfAnthropology5:81-103.Rosenberg,arenR.1992 EvolutionfModemHuman hildbirth.earbook fPhysi-calAnthropology5:89-124.Rosenberg,aren,ndWendaTrevathan.1996 BipedalismndHumanBirth: heObstetricalilemma e-visited.volutionarynthropology(5):161-168.Ruff,hris .1984 AllometryetweenengthndCross-Sectionalimensionsof he emur ndTibianHomo apiens apiens. mericanour-nalofPhysical nthropology5(4):347-358.1993 Climatic daptationndHominid volution:heTher-moregulatorymperative.volutionarynthropology:53-60.2000 Body ize,Body hape, ndLongBone trengthnModernHumans.JournalfHuman volution8(2):269-290.Ruff,hris ., ndWilson . Hayes1983 Cross-SectionaleometryfPecos ueblo emorandTib-iae-A Biomechanicalnvestigation:I.Sex,Age, ideDiffer-ences.AmericanJournalfPhysicalnthropology60(3):383-400.Ruff,hris .,Clark pencer arsen,ndWilsonC.Hayes1984 StructuralhangesntheFemur ith heTransitionoAgri-culturen theGeorgia oast.AmericanJournalf hysical n-thropology4(2):125-136.

Sibley, ynn, eorge .Armelagos,ndDennisP.VanGerven1992 Obstetricimensionf he rue elvisn Medieval opula-tion romudanese ubia.AmericanJournalfPhysicalnthro-pology9(4):421-430.Slotkin,ames .,ed.1965 ReadingsnEarly nthropology.ublicationnAnthropol-ogy, 0. NewYork: ikingund.Spencer, rank1981 TheRise fAcademichysical nthropologyntheUnitedStates,880-1980: Historical verview.mericanJournalfPhysical nthropology6:353-364.1997 Anthropometry.nHistoryfPhysical nthropology:nEn-cyclopedia,ol. 1. F. pencer,d.Pp. 0-89. NewYork: arland.Stocking, eorgeW.,Jr.1968 Race, ulturendEvolution:ssaysntheHistoryfAnthro-pology. ewYork: ree ress.Stuart-Macadam,atty1992 Porotic yperostosis:NewPerspective.mericanournalofPhysical nthropology7(1):39-47.Tague,Robert .1989 VariationnPelvic izebetween ales ndFemales. meri-canJournalfPhysical nthropology0(1):59-71.1994 Maternal ortalityrProlongedrowth: ge t Death ndPelvicize nThree rehistoricmerindianopulations.meri-canJournalf hysical nthropology5(1):27-40.Tague,Robert .,andC. OwenLovejoy.1986 Obstetricelvis fA.L. 88-1 Lucy). ournalfHuman vo-lution 5(4):237-255.Torroni, ntonio, hiaraRengo, alentina uida,Fulvio ruciani,DanieleSellitto, lfredooppa,Fernando unaCalderon, arbaraSimionati, iorgio alle,Martin ichards,incentMacaulay,ndRosaria cozzari2001 DotheFour lades f heMtDNA aplogroup2Evolve tDifferentates? mericanournalfHumanGenetics69(6):1348-1356.Tylor,dward urnett1881 Anthropology:n ntroductiono he tudyfMan ndCivilization,ols. -2.London:Watts.van derKlaauw, .J.1945 CerebralkullndFacial kull. rchiveseerlandaiseseZoologie :16-38.1952 Functionalomponentsf he kull. ong sland, Y:E.J.

Brill.VanGerven, ennis.P.,George .Armelagos,nd Arthur ohr1976 ContinuityndChange nCranialMorphologyfThree u-bianArchaeologicalopulations. an12:270-277.VanGerven, ennisP.,MaryK.Sandford,ndJames .Hummert1981 MortalityndCulturehangenNubia'sBatn lHajar.Journal fHuman volution0:395-408.Washburn,herwood .1951 TheNewPhysicalnthropology.ransactionsf heNewYork cademyf cience, 13(7):298-304.1953 TheNewPhysical nthropology.earbookfPhysical n-thropology:124-130.White, eslieA.1965 Anthropology964:RetrospectndProspect.merican n-thropologist7:629-637.Wood,J.M.,G. R.Milner, . C. Harpending,nd K. M.Weiss1992 TheOsteologicalaradox: roblemsf nferringrehistoricHealth romkeletalamples. urrentnthropology33:343-370.

armelagos et al. a century of skeletal pathology

Documents