Forensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology in the American Anthropologist Rare but Exquisite Gems

Abstract

This article explores forensic anthropological and bioarchaeological publishing patterns in the American Anthropologist (n.s.). Early contributions by Harris Hawthorne Wilder on both subjects are considered in detail, including previously unrecognized discussions of taphonomic variables. Articles on forensic anthropology in the American Anthropologist appear only during the first four decades of publication. While relatively well represented in early issues, bioarchaeological articles decrease in number over time. Comparative data from six other journals suggest that their presence has had a profound effect on the American Anthropologist. The impact of the "new" physical anthropology on publishing patterns in bioarchaeology is also assessed. [

Virtual taphonomy: A new method integrating excavation and postprocessing in an archaeological context

“…The first steps in this direction were taken in the early 20th century with the pioneer publication of Wilder and Whipple (1917) on body decay and the skeletal remains in relation to the archaeological context, later named "necrodynamics" (Wilder, 1923), a legacy seldom acknowledged in literature on human taphonomy (cf. Buikstra et al, 2003). This area of investigation has been a growing field of interest internationally in osteology, especially in the last ten years (for discussion see Duday, 2006Duday, , 2009Duday and Guillon, 2006;Cheetham and Hanson, 2009;Dirkmaat and Passalacqua, 2012).…”

Research trends in human osteology: A content analysis of papers published in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology

“…This appraisal is timely, as a number of factors, both internal and external to the field, are hypothesized to have affected the nature and quantity of osteological research. Centennial retrospectives that discuss these factors were recently offered by Armelagos and Van Gerven (2003) and Buikstra et al (2003), both of which inspired the current study. Armelagos and Van Gerven (2003) used counts of bioarchaeological articles published in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology (AJPA) to document a resurgence of nontheory-driven research during the last decade, the distinction being drawn between theoretical articles (which propose and test hypotheses within an anthropological framework) and descriptive articles (everything else).…”

“…The conclusion by Armelagos and Van Gerven (2003) that human osteologists are reverting to safe, yet descriptive, research forms the core of their pointed critique, and provides one major stimulus for the present reappraisal. Buikstra et al (2003) used article counts in five anthropology journals (American Anthropologist, American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Current Anthropology, Journal of Forensic Sciences, and International Journal of Osteoarchaeology) to detail changes in topical interest within bioarchaeology and forensic anthropology over the last century. Buikstra et al (2003) offered a more broadly inclusive overview by virtue of the temporal depth sampled and the diverse ven-ues that characterized their sample.…”

LOST AND FOUND: NAGPRA, Scattered Relics, and Restorative Methodologies

“…Wilder's local excavations were relatively well documented: he drew detailed maps, recorded stratigraphy, measured elements, and photographed interments in situ, sometimes placing large plates of glass over the grave to sketch fleshed‐out, lifelike versions of buried individuals (Wilder and Whipple 1917). His articles for American Anthropologist on forensic reconstruction, anthropometry, and excavation were widely read (Wilder 1905, 1912, 1923; Wilder and Whipple 1917), and he was quite influential in the developing practice of physical anthropology (Buikstra et al 2003). Curiously, his dense field notes and working papers make little mention of funerary objects, even though he worked in sites where other collectors found them in association with graves.…”