Showing papers on "Biological anthropology published in 1981"

The rise of academic physical anthropology in the United States (1880–1980): A historical overview

Abstract: This paper surveys the development of physical anthropology in the period from 1880 to 1980, beginning with the founding of the U.S. Bureau of American Ethnology and the advent of professionalism in anthropology. The growth of physical anthropology within academic anthropology and the effect of the bias toward ethnology and archaeology is considered. Three historical phases are suggested: pre-1900, the pre-academic period of physical anthropology; 1900–1930, the initial development of academic physical anthropology, which witnessed the founding of the American Journal of Physical Anthropology and the American Association of Physical Anthropologists by Hrdlicka, and of Hooton's program at Harvard University; 1930-present, which has seen the full development of physical anthropology in an academic context.

Understanding physical anthropology and archeology

Abstract: The development of evolutionary theory the inheritance of biological traits microevolution in human populations human variation and adaptation an overview of the nonhuman primates primate behaviour mammalian/primate evolutionary history paleoanthropology hominid origins early hominids - organization and interpretation homo erectus homo sapiens archaeological approaches to later prehistory domestication and agriculture the rise of ancient civilizations new world civilizations.

The old physical anthropology

Abstract: In the eighteenth century, workers in general biology, medicine, and physical anthropology knew little about human physiology. As a result, they heavily stressed mystical, essentialist classifications of organisms, constitutional types, and diseases. Comparative morphology and diagnostic systems prevailed. At different times and for somewhat different reasons, these older paradigms were abandoned and newer ones adopted. Late in this scientific revolution, in the midtwentieth century, the new physical anthropology was born.

From Radcliffe-Brown to sociobiology: Some aspects of the rise of primatology within physical anthropology

Abstract: The formation of the American Association of Physical Anthro- pologists some 50 years ago marked the official recognition of physical anthro- pology as a legitimate subfield of anthropology. Since then, with the growth of individual and institutional participation in the Association, and with the develop- ment of new research paradigms, a number of subspecializations have come to be accepted within the field. Perhaps none of these specializations, however, has grown as rapidly, or spectacularly, as has the subfield of primatology. This article details some of the rise of primatology as an accepted subdiscipline of physical an- thropology and discusses the theoretical orientations which guided the first anthropological forays into the study of nonhuman primates.

Integral Forensic Anthropology

Abstract: Forensic anthropology is a new discipline with a long history of development and accomplishment. It traces its origin to the 19th century and includes many of the diverse areas of anthropology. However, its present growth is usually attributed to the effort of Ellis R. Kerley, of the University of Maryland. Kerley has been responsible for establishing the field as an intregral part of the forensic sciences. He also established it as a section of physical anthropology within the American Academy of Forensic Sciences. Since its inception in 1971, membership in the Academy has increased from 14 to about 50 people.

American Archaeology and Physical Anthropology in Historical Perspective

Abstract: The historical relationships between archaeology and physical anthropology are discussed, beginning with Morton and extending to the present. The emergence of Boasian anthropology had a fundamental effect on the way skeletal data could be interpreted in archaeological and anthropological contexts. Hooton's influence was responsible for shifting attention from the occasional individual skeleton to large samples, as exemplified by research on collections by Kidder at Pecos. Nevertheless, this and later studies suffered from a typological approach which was replaced in the 1940s by populational concepts of variability and evolutionary change. As archaeologists have come to recognize human behavior as a function of the interdependence of the physical and the cultural in particular instances of environmental adaptation, they require the explication of the physical dimension which the physical anthrologist alone can provide.