Biology Reference
In-Depth Information
One of the “bioarchaeologies” is the biocultural approach, discussed earlier and
championed by Buikstra, among others. In bioarchaeology, this approach is problem-
oriented, has a holistic viewpoint as its centerpiece, and encourages interdisciplinary
collaborations to examine the interrelationships between culture, environment, and biology
in the past (
Buikstra, 2006b
). Recent volumes taking a biocultural approach include
Gowland
and Kn ¨ sel (2009), Knudson and Stojanowski (2010), Agarwal and Glencross (2011), Tung
(2012)
, and
Baadsgaard et al. (2012)
.
Another one of the “bioarchaeologies” is the osteobiography, as coined by Saul in 1961
(
Saul and Saul, 1989; Buikstra, 2006b
). The term seeks to encapsulate the fact that bones
record several aspects of an individual's life, and that analysis should be focused on inter-
preting the combination of these features rather than age, sex, etc., separately (
Buikstra,
2006b
).
Larsen (1997, 2006)
further emphasizes the reconstruction of human behavior in
his definition and approach to bioarchaeology. For more information on these approaches,
see Smith (Chapter 7), this volume.
Regardless of the approach taken towards bioarchaeological inquiry, the questions being
asked are the same, as outlined above. Further, research that utilizes paleodemography to
accurately reconstruct the age and sex distributions of past populations as well as mortuary
behavior is being explored (
Buikstra, 2006a
).
Goldstein (2006)
, however, critiques current bio-
archaeological practice, maintaining that workers should contextualize bioarchaeology itself
by incorporating existing archaeological theory with skeletal interpretation. If the reader is an
aspiring bioarchaeologist, this advice should be heeded.
The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990
15
We have gained valuable insight into past populations via the merging of skeletal analysis
with archaeological site interpretation since Hooton's Pecos Pueblo in 1930, but political deci-
sions have impacted the practice of bioarchaeology, especially in the United States. The most
important major development that forced a reorganization of prehistoric skeletal analysis
was the passage of the
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA)
in 1990
. This federal law was in response to increased political activism by Native American
tribes that had both religious and practical arguments against the excavation, museum cura-
tion, and study of their ancestral funerary objects and human remains (
Buikstra, 2006c
). The
lawwas crafted to redress injustices to Native Americans by formalizing their access to infor-
mation about ancestral remains and materials in addition to granting them decision-making
ability with regard to those materials (
White et al., 2012
).
NAGPRA requires museums and laboratories that receive federal funding (1) to inventory
all Native American remains and funerary objects, (2) to determine which of those can be
culturally affiliated (via a preponderance of evidence that the remains or materials are or
belong to the ancestors of a federally recognized tribe), (3) to then communicate with the tribe
about the remains, and (4) to allow the tribe to decide what to do with them (
NAGPRA, 1990;
Buikstra, 2006c; White et al., 2012
). That decision may include repatriation, whereby the tribe
takes possession of the materials and no further scientific study is done, or it may include
agreements with the museum or laboratory to allow continued curation and/or study of
the materials.
15
Public Law 101-601; 25 U.S.C.
x
3001 et seq.
