Showing papers on "Biological anthropology published in 2002"

The Xavante in Transition: Health, Ecology, and Bioanthropology in Central Brazil

Abstract: "The Xavante in Transition" presents a diachronic view of the long and complex interaction between the Xavante, an indigenous people of the Brazilian Amazon, and the surrounding nation, documenting the effects of this interaction on Xavante health, ecology, and biology.A powerful example of how a small-scale society, buffeted by political and economic forces at the national level and beyond, attempts to cope with changing conditions, this study will be important reading for demographers, economists, environmentalists, and public health workers.." . . an integrated and politically informed anthropology for the new millennium. They show how the local and the regional meet on the ground and under the skin."--Alan H. Goodman, Professor of Biological Anthropology, Hampshire College"This volume delivers what it promises. Drawing on twenty-five years of team research, the authors combine history, ethnography and bioanthropology on the cutting edge of science in highly readable form."--Daniel Gross, Lead Anthropologist, The World Bank"No doubt it will serve as a model for future interdisciplinary scholarship. It promises to be highly relevant to policy formulation and implementation of health care programs among small-scale populations in Brazil and elsewhere."--Laura R. Graham, Professor of Anthropology, University of IowaCarlos E. A. Coimbra Jr. is Professor of Medical Anthropology at the National School of Public Health, Rio de Janeiro.Nancy M. Flowers is Adjunct Associate Professor of Anthropology, Hunter College. Francisco M. Salzano is Emeritus Professor, Department of Genetics, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. Ricardo V. Santos is Professor of Biological Anthropology at the National School of Public Health and at the National Museum IUFRJ, Rio de Janeiro."

Hard Evidence: Case Studies in Forensic Anthropology

Abstract: 1. Introducing Forensic Anthropology, Dawnie Wolfe Steadman. I. THE MULTIDISCIPLINARY AND LEGAL NATURE OF FORENSIC ANTHROPOLOGY CASEWORK IN THE UNITED STATES, DAWNIE WOLFE STEADMAN. 2. The Herring Case--An Outlier, Karen Ramey Burns. 3. Multidisciplinary Approach to Human Identification in Homicide Identification: A Case Study from New York, Douglas H. Ubelaker, Mary Jumbelic, Mark Wilson, and E. Mark Levinsohn. 4. Urban Anthropology: Case Studies from the New York City Medical Examiner's Office, Amy Zelson Mundorff. 5. Multiple Points of Similarity, Dawnie Wolfe Steadman and Lyle W. Konigsberg. 6. Trials in Court: The Forensic Anthropologist Takes the Stand, Kenneth A.R. Kennedy. II. SEARCH AND RECOVERY, DAWNIE WOLFE STEADMAN. 7. Case Study: Love Lost and Gone Forever, David M. Glassman. 8. Unusual "Crime" Scenes: The Role of Forensic Anthropology in the Recovery and Identification of American MIAs, Robert W. Mann, Bruce E. Anderson, Thomas D. Holland, David R. Rankin, and Johnie E. Webb, Jr. 9. The Contributions of Archaeology and Physical Anthropology to the John McRae Case, Norman J. Sauer, William A. Lovis, Mark J. Blummer, and Jennifer Fillion. III. INTERPRETATION OF TRAUMA AND TAPHONOMY, DAWNIE WOLFE STEADMAN. 10. Look Until You See: Identification of Trauma in Skeletal Material, O.C. Smith, Elayne J. Pope, and Steven A. Symes. 11. The Interface of Forensic Anthropology and Forensic Pathology in Trauma Interpretation, Douglas H. Ubelaker and John E. Smialek. 12. Taphonomy and Time: Estimating the Postmortem Interval, Murray K. Marks and Jennifer C. Love. 13. The Skull on the Lawn: Trophies, Taphonomy, and Forensic Anthropology, P. Willey and Paulette Leach. 14. A Death in Paradise: Human Remains Scavenged by a Shark, Bruce E. Anderson, Anthony Manoukian, Thomas D. Holland and William E. Grant. IV. ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES IN FORENSIC ANTHROPOLOGY, DAWNIE WOLFE STEADMAN. 15. Mitochondrial DNA: Solving the Mystery of Anna Anderson, Terry Melton. 16. The Pawn Shop Mummified Skull: Discriminating Among Forensic, Historical and Ancient Contexts, Dawnie Wolfe Steadman. 17. Incidental Findings--A Father's Love, H. Gill-King. 18. Small Bones of Contention, Sam D. Stout. V. APPLICATIONS OF FORENSIC ANTHROPOLOGY, DAWNIE WOLFE STEADMAN. 19. Corpi Aquaticus: The Hardin Cemetery Flood of 1993, Paul S. Sledzik and Allison Webb Wilcox 20. Planes, Trains and Fireworks: The Evolving Role of the Forensic Anthropologist in Mass Fatality Incidences, Frank P. Saul and Julie Mather Saul 21. Science Contextualized: The Identification of a U.S. MIA of the Vietnam War from Two Perspectives, Ann Webster Bunch and Colleen Carney Shine. 22. Forensic Anthropology and Human Rights, Mercedes Doretti and Clyde C. Snow.

Animals and Anthropology

Abstract: Anthropology encompasses four distinct subdisciplines: biological anthropology, social anthropology (known as “cultural anthropology” in North America), archaeology, and linguistics. Beyond these basic four Želds, one could further divide anthropology into a nearly endless array of specializations (primatology, legal anthropology, medical anthropology, and historical archaeology, to name just a few). Of course, all Želds have their divisions, but anthropology’s sub-Želds are unusual for their varying and complex ties to the natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities. They differ radically in their preoccupations, basic assumptions, research methods, and connections to other disciplines. This diversity and scope make assessing anthropology’s relationship to Animal Studies especially challenging. Consideration of anthropology’s diversity and scope is important, however, for understanding what anthropology brings to Animal Studies and the promise Animal Studies holds for a revitalized anthropology.

Anthropology in the 20th Century and beyond

Abstract: This article reviews the growth of knowledge in the four fields of anthropology. It is not an intellectual history but, rather, focuses on what I consider to have been the important developments in substantive knowledge. [Keywords: U.S. anthropology, four fields, 20th century, substantive knowledge]

The Scientific Fallacy of the Human Biological Concept of Race

Abstract: Key Words: Physical anthropology, forensic anthropology, evolution, Linnaeus, Darwin, Broca, Blumenbach, Carleton Coon, Cavalli-Sforza, F. Boas, Margaret Mead, Ashley Montagu, R. Lewontin, S. J. Gould, L. Lieberman, dismantling race, nazi-fascist racism. A Wrong Approach Modern science try to understand the phenomena of nature through the formulation of hypotheses and their subsequent empirical control by comparing predictions and observations. If a scientific hypothesis receive the empirical validation then it become part of the construction of a paradigm; otherwise, the hypothesis must be simply rejected if falsified by experimental results (Popper 1934; Kragh 1987). That was not the case of the construction of the "anthropological dogma" of human biological concept of race. Physical anthropology originated as an independent scientific discipline during the eighteenth century, and has been affected by an epistemological error from the very beginning. In fact, the existence of races was considered the basic principle of physical anthropology instead of just being a hypothesis amenable to empirical investigation, and therefore for about two centuries physical anthropologists refused to be led by the only criterion of truth that natural sciences recognize, namely empirical validation. However, all scholars who dedicated themselves to that futile classificatory exercise unintentionally contributed to demonstrate that they were involved in a false paradigm, because of the problematic aspects in explaining human biological variability using the taxonomic sub-specific category of race. This difficulty in identifying human races was proved by the high number of subdivisions suggested, which included two to sixty-three races, and differences in the traditional definition of race: Race as synonymous of sub-species, ethnic group, population, and so on (Darwin 1871; Count 1950; Biasutti 1967; Could 1981; Brace 1982). Why did so many physical anthropologists refuse to test the hypothesis of whether human biological variability could be neatly subdivided according to the taxonomic sub-specific categories of race? Why did so many physical anthropologists accept the racial paradigm? Three main constrains, two external and one internal to the scientific process, contributed to this serious error in scientific logic. First, the history of the cultural context from which physical anthropology originated. Second, the history of the social context in which physical anthropologists formulated the concept of race. Third, the broad process of construction of theories within Biological Sciences. The Cultural Context which Conditioned Physical Anthropologists The first reason emerged from a western culture idea that biological and ethnic diversity is very ancient. This concept developed in Egypt during the second millennium B.C., and represented a deep change in perspective. In fact, before then not only humanity but the whole world was considered as a unit. The Egyptians subdivided humankind into four groups, one of which was made up by themselves. They in fact called themselves Remet which simply means "man". In their paintings of the fifteenth century B.C. they were portraid in red, while the Asiatics named Aamu in yellow, the populations of sub-Saharan Africa, the Nubians named Nehesyu, in black, and the Libyans, as well as some western populations named Tjemehu, with yellow hair and blue eyes (Bresciani et al. 1993; Gardiner 1947). Still in ancient times, the father of history Herodotus (490/480430/420 B.C.) gave a physical description to a great number of people in his Historie, and Pliny the Elder (23-79) in his Naturalis historic explained physical differences between Africans and Europeans as a direct consequence of climate. After Herodotus all long-distance travellers, up to the origin of physical anthropology, left descriptions of the peoples they met (Daumas 1957; Duchet 1971; Geymonat 1973). …

Changes in biological anthropology: results of the 1998 American Association of Physical Anthropology Membership Survey

Abstract: In response to the results of the 1996 survey of the membership of the American Association of Physical Anthropology (AAPA), the Executive Committee of the Association sponsored a follow-up survey designed to assess gender and specialty differences in training, employment, academic status, mentoring, and research support. A total of 993 questionnaires was analyzed, representing approximately 62% of the 1998 membership of the Association. There has been a marked shift in the number of males and females in the discipline from the 1960s to the 1990s. While 51.2% of all respondents are female and 48.8% are male, 70% of the students are female. Chi-square tests indicate significant differences between males and females by highest degree, age, status, obtaining a tenure-track position, receiving tenure, and taking nontenure-track employment before receiving a tenure-track position. In recent years, there has been an increasing number of females in the ranks of assistant and associate professors; however, this is not true for the rank of professor. There are also significant differences between males and females by specialty within the discipline: researchers in primatology, human biological variation, skeletal biology, and paleopathology are primarily female, while researchers in human and primate evolution are increasingly female.

The status of the race concept in Chinese biological anthropology

Abstract: The AA. examine the status of the concept of race in China through a survey of research papers in Acta Anthropologica Sinica, China's only journal dedicated to biological anthropology. The survey leads to the conclusion that the concept of race is deeply rooted and uncritically accepted in Chinese biological anthropology.

The British Association meeting of 1905 and the rise of physical anthropology in South Africa : history of science

Abstract: The visit of the British Association for the Advancement of Science to South Africa in 1905 was a formative event for the nascent South African scientific community. The overseas delegates travelled to two South African cities as part of the meeting and visited five other cities on excursions. At each venue they met their South African counterparts and presented public lectures. The presence of two influential European anthropologists in the party had a significant influence on the developing field of physical anthropology in the colonies. In particular, these anthropologists helped to define the typological approach to the study of South African native peoples. South African physical anthropology would be transfixed with this racial focus for the next five decades.