Biology Reference
In-Depth Information
contribute a unique perspective of the life and health of a person who was a member of
alargersociety.
A CONCISE (AND ABRIDGED) OVERVIEW AND HISTORY
OF THEMES IN PHYSICAL/BIOLOGICAL ANTHROPOLOGY
RELEVANT TO HUMAN SKELETAL BIOLOGY
11
At the end of the nineteenth century, physical anthropology emerged as a subdiscipline of
anthropology that focused on the physical anatomy of Homo sapiens (e.g.,
Hrdli
cka, 1914;
Spencer, 1986, 1997; Cook, 2006
). However, in recent years, the use of the designator “biolog-
ical” has begun to replace “physical” to describe this subdiscipline of anthropology. This shift
is meant to demonstrate the discipline's emphasis on the population and its biocultural
aspects in addition to the evolutionary history of the entire species as the object of study
rather than on physical types of human beings. The two terms are used interchangeably
throughout the text; however, “physical anthropology” is used in reference to the discipline's
past while “biological anthropology” is used in reference to the present and the future. We
have made this decision because the term “biological” is more general and inclusive than
“physical,” hinting at not just the physical form but the underlying evolutionary processes
as well. As an aside, the National Science Foundation in the United States recently changed
the Physical Anthropology program name to “Biological Anthropology,” citing as the reason
the diversity of the field.
12
Typology and its Consequences
The following discussion is a brief historical review of the evolution of physical anthro-
pology as a field focused on types of human beings and their hierarchical arrangement to
one that has instead become focused on populations and human variation.
Brace (1982)
asserts that delving into historical background is valuable, but that we must consider what
to do about the facts we uncover rather than be ashamed of them. Therefore, biological anthro-
pologists must be both aware of the beginnings of our subdiscipline and self-aware that each
scientist is a product of their own culture, which includes contemporary sociopolitical
convention.
Research in physical anthropology initially was focused on early scientists using a typolog-
ical approach borrowed from biologists and naturalists. Typology is the use of characteristics
of one individual or a few individuals to characterize an entire population. As Western
scientists had been dividing humans into races or categories for centuries (e.g., see
Linnaeus,
1758; Blumenbach, 1806
), it was therefore assumed that races did exist, that there were
features that were typical of each race (physical
and
sociocultural), and that the races could
be organized hierarchically. Stemming out of this was the idea that physical characteristics
11
Much of the information presented in this section up to “Processualism” (especially related to the race
concept) is covered in more detail in DiGangi and Hefner (Chapter 5), this volume. Please read that chapter
for more information and consult the references cited therein.
12
See
http://www.nsf.gov
