Biology Reference
In-Depth Information
While some scholars have contended that biodistance analysis is simply typological and
harks back to early manifestations of physical anthropology (e.g.,
Armelagos and Van
Gerven, 2003
), others have disagreed, stating that biodistance analysis has the potential to
clarify how evolutionary forces have affected our species' history, including, among other
things, providing insight into ethnogenesis via understanding of how populations interacted
with each other in the past (e.g.,
Stojanowski and Buikstra, 2004
). However, fears that
analyses such as biodistance are essentially typological should be heeded by scholars under-
taking such analyses when constructing hypotheses and during the contextualization of the
results and the conclusions.
IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS
It should be clear after reading this volume that presenting and publishing your results is
a requirement. Imagine if Earnest Hooton had never published
The Indians of Pecos Pueblo
,or
Sherwood Washburn decided to not write his manuscript about the direction he thought the
discipline should take. What if George Armelagos had not attended the 1965 National
Academy of Sciences symposium on the sad state of skeletal analysis hosted by Saul Jarcho
or if Jane Buikstra had never formally married archaeology with the study of human skele-
tons? How might the discipline be different without these seminal contributors or contribu-
tions? These pioneers, among others, set the foundation for modern skeletal biology. While
your project may not necessarily become a keystone of skeletal biology research, it neverthe-
less is a contribution that adds to the growth of the discipline.
This volume has further demonstrated that collaboration with scholars in other disciplines
is beneficial in terms of the knowledge that can be generated. The biocultural approach essen-
tially calls for interdisciplinary collaboration. As anthropologists, our unique holistic view-
point requires our vision to take place through a wide lens. A valuable way to answer
anthropological questions therefore is through collaboration with colleagues in all areas of
science.
VISION TOWARDS THE FUTURE
cka, Hooton, and Boas laid its foundation.
We have moved from a discipline focused on the analysis and description of human types
to one that interprets adaptation and embraces cultural and environmental explanations
for human variation. Larsen asserts, “The recent shift in paradigm from emphasis on
typology and description of anatomical and pathological variation to that of processual
and behavioral interpretation is a breakthrough that is providing the basis for a more mean-
ingful understanding of past adaptation” (1987:410). While this statement was made almost
30 years ago, it remains relevant today. Our goal as skeletal biologists is to explain and inter-
pret the reasons for human variation from a holistic standpoint, acknowledging the complex
interaction of culture, environment, and biology.
Students of skeletal biology are therefore encouraged to carry the torch into the next gener-
ation, by asking new questions based on developing technologies from different scientific
The field has evolved significantly since Hrdli
