Engaging bodies in the public imagination: Bioarchaeology as social science, science, and humanities

Abstract

Bioarchaeology is the contextual analysis of biological remains from past societies. It is a young and growing discipline born during the latter half of the twentieth century from its roots in physical anthropology and archaeology. Although often associated with the study of ancient diet and disease, bioarchaeology leverages variable temporal scales and its global scope to provide a uniquely comparative perspective on human life that transcends traditional boundaries of the natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities. Here, we explore the public face of bioarchaeology and consider the trends in publication practices that reflect diversifying research strategies. Bioarchaeology is a popular topic on web-based science news aggregators. However, we identify a disconnect between bioarchaeology's traditional research emphases, emerging research foci, and findings that actually spark the public imagination. A majority of popular news articles emphasize basic discovery or "natural curiosities." Publication data indicate the field also remains regionally focused with relatively little emphasis on nomothetic goals. Nevertheless, bioarchaeology can do more to leverage its historical perspective and corporeal emphasis to engage a number of topics with importance across traditional academic boundaries. Big data, comparative, multi-investigator, interdisciplinary projects on violence, colonialism, and health offer the most obvious potential for driving research narratives in the biological and social sciences. Humanistic approaches that explore emotional connections to the past can also have merit. The diversity of research outlets and products indicates the field must embrace the importance of nontraditional activities in its value structure to maximize our potential in public arenas.

Bioarchaeology and Kinship: Integrating Theory, Social Relatedness, and Biology in Ancient Family Research

“…By exploring the ways in which multiscalar family identities are formed, modified, and interact with other forms of social identities, bioarchaeologists can provide important insights into the long-term and large-scale effects of the processes of identity formation and transformation. Stojanowski and Duncan (2015) note that for the field of bioarchaeology to remain relevant in contemporary public discourse, bioarchaeologists must develop research projects of general interest and disseminate findings among broad audiences. The investigation of families in the ancient and recent past has the potential to attract widespread interest via major media outlets and science news aggregators.…”

“…We also acknowledge the public's fascination with ancient ''family'' burials and the importance of engaging broader audiences in (bio)archaeological research (Stojanowski and Duncan 2015). Images of small group burials containing individuals interpreted as family members tend to capture the public imagination due to their propensity to invoke sentiments of empathy and commonality between modern and past peoples (e.g., Cohen 2015, p. 35).…”

Incisor ablation among the late upper paleolithic people of Tam Hang (Northern Laos): Social identity, mortuary practice, and oral health

“…The study of human social identities through the contextual analysis of human remains and a strong engagement with social theory is an increasingly common focus in bioarchaeology (Sofaer, ; Knudson and Stojanowski, ; Buikstra and Scott, ; Gowland and Knüsel, ; Agarwal and Glencross, ; Baadsgaard et al, ; Stojanowski and Duncan, ). The bioarchaeological research on human body modification has proven particularly useful in elucidating aspects of individual and group‐level social identities across diverse case studies (Logan et al, ; Blom, ; Geller, ; Williams and White, ; Knudson and Stojanowski, ; Torres‐Rouff, ; Tiesler, ; Durband et al, ; Stojanowski et al, ).…”

Stronger Together: Advancing a Global Bioarchaeology

“…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).…”