Bioarchaeology as a Process: An Examination of Bioarchaeological Tribes in the USA

Rakita, Gordon F. M.

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-06370-6_16

Cited by 12 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Over the last 40 years, bioarchaeology has developed from the specialist study of human remains and their mortuary contexts into an interdisciplinary field that addresses topics of larger archaeological and anthropological interest (Rakita 2014). Through deeper engagement with contemporary social theory, it can contribute to even broader discourse across the social sciences and humanities regarding fundamental questions about the human experience.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrating Identities: An Innovative Bioarchaeological and Biogeochemical Approach to Analyzing the Multiplicity of Identities in the Mortuary Record

Torres‐Rouff¹,

Knudson²

2017

Current Anthropology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrating Identities: An Innovative Bioarchaeological and Biogeochemical Approach to Analyzing the Multiplicity of Identities in the Mortuary Record

Torres‐Rouff¹,

Knudson²

2017

Current Anthropology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Within American bioarchaeology, however, different schools of thought developed within the nascent discipline (Buikstra and Beck 2006;Rakita 2014;Stojanowski and Duncan 2014). The biocultural approach was championed by George Armelagos, his colleagues, and their students, who acquired broad training across the subfields of anthropology (Zuckerman and Martin 2016b).…”

Section: The Development Of Bioarchaeologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Stronger Together: Advancing a Global Bioarchaeology

Baker

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bioarchaeology is a burgeoning, integrative field that spans the globe. Bioarchaeology is often thought to encompass the study of only the human remains found within archaeological sites, frequently divorced from the contexts in which they were found. The physical remains of people store a record of their biological attributes, providing information on illnesses or trauma they survived or that may have contributed to their deaths, their daily activities, biological affinities, and more. Equally informative are the different ways that people were treated in death by those who survived them. Rather than investigating only the biological remains or studying material culture alone, integrating these components permits a more complete understanding of how people experienced an array of circumstances over the course of their own lives and through multiple generations. Differing subsistence practices, access to resources, exposure to hazards, and changes in economic, political, religious, or environmental factors over time and across vast areas of the world are topics explored by bioarchaeologists. Learning how past peoples were affected by pathogens, climate change, and immigration, for example, provides insight into contemporary issues and ABSTRACTBioarchaeology is a relatively young field that aims to improve our understanding of life, death, and interrelationships among past humans around the globe. The discipline grew out of 1960s American processual archaeology and biological anthropology and emerged as human osteoarchaeology in the UK. Today, bioarchaeology is a vibrant, interdisciplinary field of study that cross-cuts biological anthropology, archaeology, and social theory to situate past peoples within their biological, cultural, and environmental circumstances. The field emphasizes not only the study of human remains but the integrative analysis and interpretation of their context, including the archaeological, sociocultural, and political milieu and the environmental setting in which people lived. The growing interest in bio archae ol o gi cal research has created the need for a new peer-reviewed journal to help unify and advance this discipline around the globe. In this introduction to Bioarchaeology International, we trace the origins of the field and the different "schools" of bioarchaeology that have developed and are now merging as the discipline has matured. We then delineate the purpose and goals of the journal, highlighting how the articles in the first issue contribute to those goals. Finally, as co-editors in chief, we describe our vision for contemporary and future directions in bioarchaeology. With this overview of the field and journal, we wish to stimulate discussion and promote international submissions. We intend for Bioarchaeology International to strengthen this growing field and help promote scholarly and public interest in our collective research.Keywords: archaeology; biological anthropology; biocultural; funerary archaeology; mortuary behavior; osteology; osteoarchaeology; paleopatholo...

show abstract

“…Yet bioarchaeology is hardly a unified discipline; it remains divided along the lines suggested by its hybrid name. Thus, Gordon Rakita () identified two “tribes” among bioarchaeologists in the United States, one geared to issues of “biological adaptation,” the other to “a wide range of anthropologically relevant questions” (see also Agarwal and Glencross ; Buikstra et al. ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…). My own approach is rooted in the latter tribe, with its characteristic focus on “cultural and social identity rather than simply health status” and its tendency to draw on “theories from socio‐cultural anthropology” as well as “post‐processual developments in archaeology” (Rakita , 223). In some ways, however, the present argument is perhaps too “undisciplined” to satisfy either tribe.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Corporeal Congregations and Asynchronous Lives: Unpacking the Pews at Spring Street

Novak

2017

American Anthropologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article seeks to expose the "fallacies of synchrony" that often accompany the analysis of human remains. In approaching a cemetery, for example, we all too easily think of the bodies there as a "community," even when they belong to different generations or geographic contexts. This simple point has major implications, especially for the bioarchaeology of urban landscapes. Here, chronologically disparate elements accumulate in vast mélanges, offering innumerable examples of the "non-contemporaneity of the contemporaneous," an idea developed by Karl Mannheim ([1928] 1952) and Alfred Schutz (1967, and now extended to archaeology by Gavin Lucas (2015).To escape the fallacies of synchrony and explore the shifting rhythms of city life, I turn to the case of the Spring Street Presbyterian Church in Manhattan. When the church burial vaults (ca. 1820-1850) were unexpectedly unearthed in 2006, they seemed to represent a ready-made "congregation." Yet Spring Street was actually a "catchment zone" of mingled and mangled temporalities. Though placed together in death, the bodies there had only occasionally crossed paths in life. By following some of their traces to and from the site, we may come to understand what it means to gather, work, and worship together in a society of strangers. [cemetery, generation, life course, temporality, Manhattan] RESUMEN Este artículo busca exponer las "falacias de la sincronía" que a menudo acompañan el análisis de los restos humanos. Cuando nos acercamos a un cementerio, por ejemplo, todos fácilmente pensamos de los cuerpos allí como una "comunidad," aun cuando pertenecen a diferentes generaciones o contextos geográficos.Este simple punto tiene mayores implicaciones, especialmente para la bioarqueología de los paisajes urbanos. Aquí, elementos cronológicamente dispares se acumulan en vastas mezclas, ofreciendo innumerables ejemplos de la "nocontemporaneidad de lo contemporáneo", una idea desarrollada por Karl Mannheim ([1928] 1952) y Alfred Schutz (1967), y ahora extendida a la arqueología por Gavin Lucas (2015). Para escapar de las falacias de la sincronía y explorar los ritmos cambiantes de la vida de la ciudad, vuelvo al caso de la Iglesia Presbiteriana de Spring Street en Manhattan. Cuando las bóvedas de entierro de la iglesia (ca. 1820-1850) fueron desenterradas inesperadamente en 2006, parecieron representar una "congregación" previamente formada. Todavía Spring Street era en realidad una "zona de captación" de temporalidades mezcladas y mutiladas. Aunque colocados juntos en muerte, los cuerpos allí sólo ocasionalmente habían cruzado caminos en vida. Siguiendo algunas de sus huellas desde y hacia el sitio, podemos llegar a entender qué significa reunir, trabajar, y rezar juntos en una sociedad de extraños. [cementerio, generación, curso de vida, temporalidad, barrio de Manhattan]

show abstract

Bioarchaeology as a Process: An Examination of Bioarchaeological Tribes in the USA

Cited by 12 publications

References 50 publications

Integrating Identities: An Innovative Bioarchaeological and Biogeochemical Approach to Analyzing the Multiplicity of Identities in the Mortuary Record

Integrating Identities: An Innovative Bioarchaeological and Biogeochemical Approach to Analyzing the Multiplicity of Identities in the Mortuary Record

Stronger Together: Advancing a Global Bioarchaeology

Corporeal Congregations and Asynchronous Lives: Unpacking the Pews at Spring Street

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About