bioarchaeology as anthropology

Bioarchaeology as Anthropology

George J. ArmelagosEmory University

Scientists' perceptions of their discipline clearly in-fluence how they frame their research agenda. See-

ing bioarchaeology as anthropology profoundly affectsthe problems that capture one's interest, the questionsthat one seeks to answer, and the methods one uses toresolve them. Bioarchaeology as anthropology reaffirmsa worldview that incorporates an intradisciplinarybiocultural approach with a cross-cultural perspective.The field is committed to understanding the adaptationand the evolution of social systems. Given the post-processual rejection of cultural evolutionary theory, re-jection of scientific methodology, rejection of cultureas a means of extrasomatic adaptation, rejection ofculture as a system, rejection of ecological interpre-tations, and rejection of etic analysis (Johnson 1999),the perspective presented in this chapter may be seen asa defense of an earlier era of scientific anthropology.Emotionally, a rejection of the postprocessual criticismmay feel like the best response; however, a reasonedevaluation of the criticism and measured response is amuch more effective strategy. This strategy is reflectedin Charles and Buikstra's (2001) effective use of "miti-gated objectivism" championed by Wylie (1992). I willargue that bioarchaeology as anthropology, by incorpo-rating aspects of the postprocessual and antiprocessualcritiques, has positioned itself to make new and sig-nificant contributions to knowledge.

In this essay, I have two objectives. The first isto discuss the development of bioarchaeology (Larsen1987, 1997) from within anthropology at the time thediscipline espoused a four-field approach. The sec-ond objective is to demonstrate the usefulness of anintradisciplinary bioarchaeology in understandingproblems in contemporary human adaptation. Specifi-cally, I will suggest how the post-Neolithic transfor-mation may play a role in helping us understand healthproblems related to diet and disease in contemporarysociety.

Bioarchaeology as Anthropology

Bioarchaeology developed by the merging of per-spectives from skeletal biology and archaeology as thedisciplines pushed themselves out of a state of mutualintellectual crisis. Both skeletal biology and archaeol-ogy in the years before the 1960s were mired in a par-ticularistic descriptive phase, and as academic disciplinesthey had stagnated. Archaeology's transformation wasfueled by the development of the "new archaeology" thatfocused on process rather than descriptions. The move-ment of skeletal biology out of this quagmire was pushedby the development of the "new physical anthropology,"whose goal was to document the biocultural processes thatoccurred as populations adapted to their environment.

Processual archaeology emphasized a functionalapproach that considered culture as a system that wasthe means by which a society adapted to its environment.This model of culture was heavily indebted to the writ-ings of Leslie A. White (1943, 1959) (Willey and Sabloff1974:178-181). In his view of culture, technology wasthe force of change in the social and ideological spheresof the cultural system. Binford (1962) contributed thenotion that individuals participated in this system differ-entially. The contribution of labor, exposure to risk, andshare of calories, goods, and information were not uni-form over the population. Unfortunately, ideology wasneglected since it was thought to be beyond materialistexplanations. The goal of the "new archaeology" was touncover evolutionary generalizations that superseded theprevious descriptive analysis that seldom went beyonddiffusion or migration as a mechanism of cultural change.In the attempt to construct these evolutionary generali-zations or laws of culture, deductive models were ap-plied with strict scientific principles to archaeologicaldata (Binford 1962, 1964; Binford and Binford 1968).Even though the processual archaeologists espoused ob-jectivity and took the position that they must be ethically

28 George J. Armelagos

neutral and not influenced by the values of contemporaryculture, the knowledge they gained would be relevant tounderstanding contemporary cultural adaptation.

Throughout its early history, skeletal biology reflectedthe anthropological fixation on race. Skeletal biologycontributed to this obsession with its use of craniologyto support the ranking of races (Morton 1839, 1844). Thisrole for skeletal biology should not be surprising giventhe anthropologists' interest in supporting the social or-der. Years later, with the founding of the American Jour-nal of Physical Anthropology, racial typology remaineda defining feature of the discipline and was a major fo-cus of study. In the inaugural issue of AJPA, Ales Hrdlicka,the journal's founder and first editor, whose biases arenow evident (Blakey 1997), proposed that "[t]he para-mount scientific objective of physical anthropology" wasthe study of the normal white man living under ordinaryconditions (Hrdlicka 1918:18).

Even when publications seemed to anticipate themodern era, race overshadowed the innovative featuresof the studies. E. A. Hooton's The Indians of PecosPueblo (1930) has been described as one of the mostimportant publications of its time. It is frequently citedas the defining moment in the birth of modern skeletalbiology. Hooton established the paleoepidemiologicalapproach that introduced quantitative analysis as a meth-odology. He enumerated the observations that he couldmake for a specific lesion and noted the percentage ofpathologies. Although this may seem a minor innova-tion, until the late 1960s, researchers routinely failed toprovide this information. It was not until the 1970s thatrudimentary epidemiological methods became a basicresearch methodology in bioarchaeology. Nonetheless,in The Indians of Pecos Pueblo, Hooton distilled a racialtypology that described the skeletal population as a com-posite of a number of racial groups. He accepted thepremise of "pure races" defined by fixed immutable ge-netic traits present since their origins. Although Hootonclaimed that the racial typology of Pecos was only anexercise that did not necessarily reflect population his-tory, he argued later in the book that the "African" racialtypes found at Pecos were features that the populationretained as a result of their African heritage. These ra-cial features, according to Hooton, were present whenancestral populations migrated out of Africa (Armelagos1968). Even with its innovative approach to paleo-pathology, the epidemiological perspective of Pecos re-mained a footnote to history. It was the racial typologythat captured the interest of other researchers.

The early 1950s saw a remarkable confluence ofpublications in anthropology that offered two dramati-

cally opposing paradigms. In 1952, George Neumann(1952) published "Archeology and Race in the Ameri-can Indian" in James B. Griffin's influential Archeologyof Eastern United States, which provided the methodsfor reconstructing the culture history of Native Ameri-cans using cranial morphology. Neumann's (1954a,1954b) contribution was deemed so important that itwas selected for publication in the Yearbook of PhysicalAnthropology for 1952.

At about the same time, S. L. Washburn (1951) pub-lished "The New Physical Anthropology," one of themost influential publications of the modern era, whichwas also reprinted in the Yearbook (Washburn 1953a)and later revised for the widely read Anthropology To-day (Washburn 1953b). Washburn described the trans-formations that defined the "new physical anthropology."In its rebirth, classification would give way to processualstudies, theory now would become paramount, new tech-nology would supplant anthropometry, and hypothesistesting would displace mere speculation.

In line with the focus on the genetic approach tobiological anthropology, William C. Boyd's (1950) Ge-netics and the Races of Man proclaimed the death of skel-etal biology with the renaissance of genetics. He arguedthat blood groups of known genetic inheritance wouldbecome the future of biological anthropology. Boyd spe-cifically targeted osteology, saying that genetics wouldmake skeletal studies "passe." Blood groups would domi-nate the discipline because they were inherited, math-ematically manipulable, objective and not subject toprejudice, and insulated from environmental influence.Boyd claimed that since an individual's blood type didnot change during one's lifetime, it could be assumed tobe immune to selection. This remarkable misunderstand-ing of evolutionary mechanisms did not dampen Boyd'sinfluence, and blood groups became the preferred methodfor population analysis. Interestingly, while geneticistsclaimed to be at the cutting edge of research, their majorcontribution remained the descriptive typological analy-sis of race. The retention of typology in physical anthro-pology demands to be examined more fully.

Until the 1980s, skeletal biology remained a de-scriptive undertaking, which contributed to its mori-bund state (Armelagos et al. 1982). The field wasplagued by a fundamental worldview that had littletheoretical or methodological foundation. In the drive toreconstruct culture history, racial models were used toanalyze similarities in morphology that implied geneticrelationships. Cranial similarities were considered suffi-cient evidence to establish cultural relationships betweenand among populations.

Bioarchaeology as Anthropology 29

Even as it attempted to move beyond culture his-tory, skeletal biology seemed trapped by its historicalperspective. Some paleopathologists, for example,claimed their primary objective was the diagnosis of skel-etal lesions that could be used to determine a disease'stemporal and geographic distribution. The field was chal-lenged further theoretically by the indiscriminate appli-cation of advanced medical technology to diagnosepathological conditions. The standard by which progressin paleopathology or skeletal biology was measured wasthe researcher's ability to incorporate the latest advancesin medical instrumentation or statistical analysis(Armelagos et al. 1982). New technologies—whetherthey were the latest imaging system or the most up-to-date multivariate statistical package—were applied with-out a concern for solving a problem beyond the issue ofdiagnosis or description. The cultural context of diseaseor the adaptive aspects of the morphological feature werenot a major concern.

Even as bioarchaeology was developing, skeletalbiologists continued to engage in typological studies,including some not-so-subtle attempts to imply a differ-ential evolution of racial groups. Carleton Coon's (1962,1965) racial studies represented the most prominent ofsuch models. After the obvious racist intent of craniol-ogy was overcome, racial typology remained the meansby which skeletal biologists reconstructed the biologicalhistory of a population. For example, influential biologi-cal anthropologists such as W. W. Howells (1973, 1989;Howells and Crichton 1966) continued to use crania toreconstruct population history. Although Howells aban-doned the term race, he defined geographic groups thatcorresponded to his earlier racial groups. There is now acomputer program, Fordisc 2.0 (Owsley and Jantz 1996),packaged for personal computers that uses the Howellsdatabase and claims to be able to classify an unknownspecimen into one of Howells's geographic populations.Tests of the Fordisc 2.0 program with homogenous Afri-can samples from ancient Nubia demonstrate its failure(Belcher et al. 2002; Leathers et al. 2002): nearly one-half of the crania were classified as belonging to popu-lations outside of Africa.

In a sense, the current application of mitochondrialDNA to reconstruct human migration patterns is analo-gous to the typological studies of blood groups or craniain earlier research. L. Cavalli-Sforza (Cavalli-Sforza andMinch 1997; Cavalli-Sforza and Piazza 1993; Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1988) and others (Jorde et al. 1997; Torroniet al. 1993; Torroni et al. 1994) are using mitochondrialDNA and other genetic systems to reconstruct the originand dispersion of human populations out of Africa. These

studies use sophisticated genetic techniques to answertypological questions reminiscent of an earlier era ofanthropology (Terrell and Stewart 1996).

Development of Bioarchaeology

The conflicting paradigms within paleopathologydelayed its impact on bioarchaeology. Paleopathologyhas two major perspectives with quite divergent objec-tives: (1) the determination of the chronology and ge-ography of disease from a biomedical, even clinical,perspective and (2) the reconstruction of societal life-ways from an anthropological focus. The incorporationof an anthropological perspective in paleopathology wasessential in the development of bioarchaeology. Mostearly paleopathologists were physicians or anthropolo-gists strongly committed to a biomedical focus, andpaleopathology clearly had its beginning in medicine withan interest in diagnosis. In their widely read synthesis,Ortner and Aufderheide (1991) ally paleopathology withbiomedicine rather than with anthropology and its bio-cultural perspective (Armelagos 1994). These two dis-tinctive viewpoints remain the forces that define the fieldin different ways to this day.

The birth of bioarchaeology can be seen as the blend-ing of methods and data from skeletal biology and archae-ology. Hypothesis testing was featured in both approaches.The fact that skeletal material can be used to indepen-dently measure outcomes represents one of bioarchae-ology's greatest strengths. Even as archaeology debatedthe postprocessual critique, bioarchaeology retained itsconcern for process and its commitment to hypothesistesting. The contribution of postprocessual thinking tobioarchaeology has been an interest in framing hypoth-eses in a political-economic context, using the analysisof skeletons to measure the effects of social, political,and economic transformations on health and illness.Postprocessual archaeology that reflects a more politi-cal perspective (Leone 1995) and bioarchaeology shareoverlapping interests. Race (Blakey 1998), violence(Martin and Frayer 1997), power (Blakely et al. 1997),gender (Grauer and Stuart-Macadam 1998), and inequal-ity (Goodman et al. 1995) are topics of mutual concern.

The incorporation of a population perspective wasan essential first step in the modern transformation ofpaleopathology. Although the individual is the unit ofdiagnosis, the population is the unit of analysis. The dis-ease process from a bioarchaeological perspective canbe understood only in the context of population analy-sis. Bioarchaeologists have used populations to analyzeregions and ecosystems (i.e., agriculture in tropical ar-


eas). In addition, more recent advances in skeletal biol-ogy resulted from examining the skeleton at the organ,tissue, cellular, and subcellular levels. Analyses of bonehistology (Martin and Armelagos 1979) and chemistry(White and Armelagos 1997) to study osteoporosis, theuse of stable isotopes to reconstruct diet (Schwarz andSchoeninger 1991) and determine age of weaning(Katzenberg et al. 1996), the analysis of antibiotic use(Armelagos et al. 2002), and the DNA identification ofpathogens (Braun et al. 1998) provide new dimensionsto bioarchaeology. Developing from this theoretical per-spective, a new journal has appeared recently called An-cient Biomolecules, specializing in research that focuseson subcellular analysis.

Culture as a component of an individual's environ-ment can influence the disease process in many ways.As a part of the environment, culture can buffer indi-viduals from some environmental insults (Bates 1953)while at the same time producing different insults (May1960) that can disrupt an individual's physiology (bydefinition a stress indicator). By reconstructing culturalbehavior, the bioarchaeologist can evaluate its effective-ness as a buffer, its failure to buffer, and its role in pro-ducing anthropogenic insults. Considering adaptation inthis context has led to a more systematic analysis of hu-man health and disease interaction that characterizesbioarchaeology. By examining stress indicators, "cracks"in the process of adaptation can be used to evaluate theability of a cultural system to respond to stressors (Good-man et al. 1988).

The third advance important in the development ofbioarchaeology was the recognition that multiple indi-cators of stress (i.e., congenital defects, growth disrup-tions, nutritional deficiencies, infections, degenerativeconditions, and trauma) (Goodman, Martin, et al. 1984;Larsen 1987, 1997) and patterns of cranial (Carlson andVan Gerven 1977; Van Gerven et al. 1976) and postcra-nial (Ruff 2000) skeletal morphology are indispensablefactors in reconstructing patterns of adaptation. The useof multiple stress indicators can reveal patterns that areoften missed by studies that use only single stress indi-cators. For example, instead of being concerned only withthe evidence of scurvy or rickets in a population, a studyin which a suite of skeletal indicators is taken togethermay reveal a pattern of nutritional deficiencies.

The final step in the revitalization of bioarchaeologyand the attainment of its full potential was the use ofskeletal evidence as a key element in archaeological in-vestigation (Blakely 1977; Buikstra 1977; Cook andBuikstra 1979). With these tools, bioarchaeology hasbeen in the vanguard in determining issues such as the

impact of cultural practices on human adaptation or mal-adaptation. The regional approach that characterized thework of Cook (1979), Buikstra (1977), and Larsen(1984), in which the archaeology and the skeletal biol-ogy of a region were controlled, was a major stimulus inthe development of bioarchaeology. The archaeologicalrecord provides unique opportunities for comparativeanalyses because archaeological sites provide access toa vast array of ecological settings, including pre/postcontact, urban/rural, inland/coastal, highland/lowland,preagricultural/agricultural, and preindustrial/industrial.

Neolithic Transformation

The origins of agriculture remains an issue that con-tinues to whet our anthropological interest. Ester Boserup(1965) authored an influential study that proposed a feed-back system in which an increase in population pressureis key to understanding changes in agricultural produc-tion. The increase in population, she argued, stimulatedagricultural production, which further increased thepopulation pressure that further stimulated production.Mark N. Cohen (1975, 1977), expanding on Boserup'smodel, suggested that an increase in population pressuremight also be the key to understanding the origins ofagriculture.

Whatever the trigger that pushed the developmentof agriculture, agriculture was assumed to have benefit-ted the health of the farmers. The conventional wisdomfor many years was that agricultural populations ex-perienced improved health and nutrition. This viewwas championed by V. G. Childe (1951), who suggestedthat food surpluses generated by agricultural subsistencewere the source of improved nutritional health, whichin turn explained the population explosion followingthe Neolithic.

The early research of paleopathologists was designedto document the role that agriculture played in improv-ing health. However, the results from Sudanese Nubia(Armelagos 1969) and Dickson Mounds, Illinois (Lalloet al. 1978) produced paradoxical findings that indicatedthat agricultural populations were experiencing signifi-cant increases in nutritional deficiencies and infectiousdisease. The results were so fundamentally different fromwhat was expected that they demanded further bio-archaeological analysis that might also help to clarifythe role that population pressure may have played in theorigins of agriculture. If Cohen was correct, then onewould expect that as population pressures increased, therewould be an increase in pathological conditions. As ag-ricultural production increased, the pathologies would


dissipate. It was the possibility of testing alternative hy-potheses that framed the discussion at the symposiumentitled "Paleopathology at the Origins of Agriculture"(Cohen and Armelagos 1984).

The symposium considered case studies in which atransition from horticulture to intensive agriculture oc-curred and in which the health status of 19 populationsthat experienced the transition had been evaluated. Therewere a number of interesting findings. To begin with, itappears that with the onset of sedentism, whether thepopulation was practicing agriculture or not, there wasan increase in infectious disease. This increase was notsolely dependent on the practice of agriculture; for ex-ample, in California some groups were so successfulin collecting acorns that a sedentary pattern of livingbecame possible (Dickel 1984). Similarly, gatherer-hunters from the Northwest Coast were living in such aresource-rich environment (Cybulski 1994) that theywere also able to maintain a large sedentary population.In both of these cases, the development of sedentism in-creased the infectious disease load. However, if and whensedentary patterns of agricultural intensification oc-curred, a rise in nutritional deficiencies would also be-come apparent.

In many instances, the impact of agricultural subsis-tence was dramatic. At Dickson Mounds, Illinois, thetransition to intensive agriculture (A.D. 950-1350) cor-responded with a rapid, significant increase in infectiousand nutritional diseases (Goodman, Lallo, et al. 1984).Iron deficiency anemia as measured by porotic hyperos-tosis increased from 13 percent to 51 percent. Systemicinfections as indicated by periosteal reaction more thandoubled, from 21 percent to 51 percent. There was also asynergistic relationship between nutritional and infec-tious diseases, and in individuals with both lesions, themanifestation of both conditions was more severe (Lalloet al. 1978). In addition, the studies showed an increasein trauma, an earlier onset of degenerative bone jointdisease, and changes in patterns of growth as evidencedby enamel defects (Blakey and Armelagos 1985;Goodman et al. 1980; Rose 1977). Given the knowledgethat we have about the rates of enamel formation (Good-man, Rose, and Armelagos 1984), we can determine theperiod when adults suffered childhood stress. In thissense, teeth have a memory of earlier metabolic events.With this information, it is possible to show that adultswho experienced growth disruptions as infants and chil-dren had an earlier onset of death (Goodman andArmelagos 1988).

Despite declining health, agriculturalists were ableto increase population size by reducing birth spacing

(Armelagos et al. 1991). A reduction in birth spacingand the change in subsistence resulted in considerablebiological costs to segments of the population, withwomen of reproductive age, infants, and children beingat greatest risk (Goodman and Armelagos 1989).

There are a number of complex factors that may ex-plain the decline in nutritional health following the de-velopment of primary food production. While agriculturecan produce surpluses, the seasonal cycle frequently cre-ates a "seasonal hunger" period (Bentley et al. 1999).During the spring when stores have been depleted andthe work in the field intensifies, nutrition will suffer. Agri-cultural production may be crippled by blights or droughtsthat can plague the group for an extended period.

Although gatherer-hunters may have to deal with"patchy" resource distribution and experience the vagar-ies of nature, they seem better able to cope with short-ages. For example, the !Kung have a variety of plantsand animals that provide their food, as they recognize365 species of plants and animals as edible (Lee 1968).Western scientists calculate that this represents about 73percent of the edible items in the environment. Nineteenspecies are considered minor foods that are availablelocally and seasonally. The 14 items in the primary andmajor food categories make up 75 percent of the foodsconsumed by the !Kung, and the simple digging stick isnecessary to recover about a quarter of the plants eaten.The range of plants and animals available for gatherersand hunters in periods of shortage is an insurance againstfamine.

In agricultural groups, certain dietary items gain thestatus of "super" foods that are the dietary mainstays andare important in ritual and ceremonial life. In many Na-tive American groups, maize is the primary food item.Maize, unfortunately, is an incomplete source of essen-tial amino acids because of a deficiency in lysine (Katzet al. 1974). While many groups complement maize withbeans, which have lysine, maize is used exclusively as aweaning food and as the food of choice for those whoare ill. Other cereal grains contain phytates that bind cer-tain minerals such as iron, reducing their bioavailabilityand thus contributing to anemia.

The weaning process appears to be an especially criti-cal phase in the life cycle (Cuthbertson 1999). Becauseof an economic demand for children, there is pressure towean infants as soon as possible, but the type of wean-ing food is critical. If maize were used exclusively, thiswould lead to deficiencies because of the insufficiencyof lysine.

Trade affects the availability of food in interestingways. Often the most nutritious foods are traded for goods


that may have symbolic value. In the Third World today,where foods are produced for the Western table, localpopulations have experienced a decline in dietary health.The money they receive for their labor is used to buyexpensive imported foods, such as caffeinated colas, thatdo not provide a balanced diet. Although political-eco-nomic factors are frequently considered in our analysesof modern inequalities, they are frequently overlookedin studies of ancient times (Goodman et al. 1995). Fol-lowing the Neolithic, class differentiation became a factof life in many world regions. The inequality withingroups and between groups would have certainly ledto disparities in the availability of food for some seg-ments of the population. Social and economic inequali-ties often lead to inequalities in health. The gap thatexisted within and between groups continued to widenin post-Neolithic times, creating an unprecedented gapbetween the "haves" and "have-nots" (Armelagos andBrown 2002).

What Can Bioarchaeology Tell Us aboutEmerging Infectious Disease and

Nutritional Problems?

The present period of unprecedented emergingdisease has captured the interest of the public (Drexler2002) and the medical community (Hughes 2001;Lederberg 1998). In the past two decades nearly twodozen pathogens such as Ebola and HIV have emerged,seemingly out of nowhere. In reality, most of these"emerging" diseases have existed for years and were only"discovered" when they impacted people in power(Farmer 1996). We frequently fail to consider politicaland economic contexts that bring humans into contactwith pathogens. For example, extreme poverty is thegreatest cause of illness and death in the world (WHO1992). The World Health Organization (WHO 2001:ap-pendix A) reports that of the 55 million global deaths inthe year 2000, 14 million were the result of infectious,parasitic, and respiratory diseases. The magnitude of theproblem is the result of the world economy expandinginto new ecological zones, and practices such as loggingand mining have had a major ecological impact that haschanged disease ecology.

The movement to new ecological niches and the evo-lution of cultural systems would have changed the rela-tionship between humans and pathogens. The conceptof epidemiological transition (Omran 1971) has beenbroadened to reflect the reality of the evolution of dis-ease (Armelagos et al. 1996). Human populations haveundergone three epidemiological transitions (Barrett et

al. 1998). The first transition corresponded to a univer-sally completed shift from food gathering to primary foodproduction. Although it occurred in multiple locationsand in slow, complex ways, this transition had revolu-tionary implications for subsequent human life on theplanet. The Neolithic revolution both allowed and re-quired population growth and increasing levels of socialinequality, forever altering human/pathogen interaction.

A second epidemiological transition began early inthis century with the decline of infectious disease andthe emergence of chronic disease. The rise in the preva-lence of chronic disease is related to the increases in lon-gevity that have occurred over the past few centuries.Changes in nutrition and reduced exposure to risk haveresulted in a larger percentage of individuals reachingthe oldest age segment of the population. The techno-logical advances such as antibiotic use that characterizethe second epidemiological transition create the prob-lems of the third epidemiological transition. The expan-sion of our globalized economy requires the exploitationof people and resources from the Third World, which in-creases worldwide environmental degradation.

We are currently entering the third epidemiologicaltransition, characterized by the emergence and reemer-gence of antibiotic-resistant infectious disease on aglobal scale (Armelagos 1998). Within our lifetime, an-tibiotics that have been vastly successful in fighting dis-ease may become ineffective, since so many pathogensare becoming resistant to all of them.

To comprehend how we arrived at this state, weneed to understand that emerging diseases have been partof the epidemiological pattern since the Neolithic. Pri-mary food production resulted in the first epidemiologi-cal transition, in which there occurred an acceleration of"new" disease (Barrett et al. 1998). Farming practicesdisrupted the local ecology, and the domestication ofanimals increased contact with insect vectors. Frequentlythese insects developed a preference for human bloodand became the source of diseases such as malaria, yel-low fever, sleeping sickness, and elephantiasis. Some ofthe disease vectors (i.e., Aedes aegypti) that spread yel-low fever and dengue fever became dependent on hu-man habitats and needed stagnant water found in opencontainers. Various agricultural practices such as irriga-tion and the use of human feces for fertilizer increasedcontact with nonvector parasites.

Food production was a huge economic change thatis associated with sedentary settlement patterns and popu-lation growth. It would be difficult to overemphasize theimportance of social stratification on health indicationsin prehistory or the present. The Neolithic revolution


marks the beginning of the social stratification that isthe prime determinant of health differentials both withinand between societies. The "inequality gap" in health andwealth accelerates with later cultural evolution.

Urbanization is a relatively recent innovation in hu-man history. Problems in removing human waste and de-livering uncontaminated water to the public are everpresent in urban centers. With urbanization, for the firsttime, diseases such as typhus and the plague could bespread from person to person, and populations becamelarge enough to maintain disease in an endemic form.Measles, mumps, chicken pox, and other viral diseases be-came entrenched in the population. Prostitution in urbancenters was a primary factor in the spread of venerealdisease. On a larger, cross-cultural scale, what is an en-demic disease in one population may become an epidemicin other populations through differential susceptibility,cross-population interactions, and cultural practices.Cross-continental trade and travel resulted in a series ofunprecedented epidemics (McNeill 1976). The plague inEurope in the 1300s killed approximately 25 millionpeople. The impact of smallpox and measles on the NewWorld population following European contact was anexample of the globalization of disease process.

The process of industrialization magnified social andenvironmental problems of cities. The industrial citiesthat rose about 200 years ago created industrial wastesand polluted water and air. Slums became focal pointsfor poverty and the spread of disease. Smallpox, typhus,typhoid, diphtheria, measles, and yellow fever epidem-ics that originated in slums have been well documented.Tuberculosis, pneumonia, and bronchitis, exacerbated byharsh working conditions and crowding, became a com-mon problem. In reality, urban population centers arepopulation sinks. Their extremely high mortality outstripstheir reproductive capacity, and in-migration is neededto maintain population size. Given the rapid increase inthe size of cities, waves of in-migration from rural areasbecame the reality.

Nutritional Disease

In the United States only 14 percent of adults com-ply with the national Recommended Dietary Allowances(RDAs) and only 30 percent consume fewer than 30 per-cent of their calories from dietary fats. Only two percentof Americans are in compliance with both recommenda-tions (Murphy et al. 1992). Given these startling statis-tics, the obvious question is why Homo sapiens, withtheir superior knowledge of nutrition, do not eat ahealthier diet.

A search into our evolutionary past to answer thisquestion has resulted in limited success. Understandingprimate evolution provides some insights into moderndietary habits, as the evolution of the primate gut allowedfor the processing of secondary compounds and fibrousplant materials. K. Milton (1993, 2000) has shown thatgut transport time affects the absorption of plant pro-tein. Humans transport food through the gut more rap-idly than do the chimpanzees and orangutans, as a resultof their longer small intestine and shorter large intestinethan those found in the great apes. The human gut is welladapted to process high-quality, high-density food thatcan be readily digested.

Early hominid dependence on high-density foodsnecessitated the development of more efficient foodsearch techniques to offset the costs of finding dispersedhigh-quality foods (Aiello 1992; Aiello and Wheeler1995). The time saved by consuming high-density foodsincreased the occasions for social interaction. If humansselected plants containing toxins or foods with largeamounts of nondigestible fiber, those foods required cul-tural processing to remove the toxins and to break downthe plant fibers. From a bioarchaeological perspective,the evolution of processing techniques such as fire forcooking and other practices can be uncovered in the ar-chaeological record (Wrangham et al. 1999). In moderncontexts, the ability to process large amounts of high-den-sity food may explain some aspects of overconsumption.

In addition, humans possess a neurological basisfor tastes (Drewnowski et al. 1992) such as sweet,salty, sour, bitter, and umami (taste for glutamate foundin protein) (Bellisle 1999). If a sweet solution is intro-duced into amniotic fluid, the fetus of a human willsuckle. Humans are "hardwired" to find the sweet tasteas pleasant (Desor et al. 1977). This propensity for thesweet taste is not surprising from an evolutionary per-spective, since sweetness is a predictor of high-energyfood sources. Our sweet tooth represents a problem whenthe food system can deliver large amounts of refinedsugars, such as that seen during and after the post-industrial era. Our sweet tooth may be necessary for un-derstanding the near-universal use of sugars, but theexistence of a social-economic system is what transformsthese tastes from a curiosity and a luxury into a low-cost"staple" (Mintz 1979, 1985).

Humans are food generalists, reflecting our ances-try as omnivores. Omnivores faced a dilemma in theirsearch for new food items, however. While they searchedfor new dietary items, they often feared eating them. Thisneophobia was resolved by the development of cuisine(Rozin 1982), which allows hominids to mediate between


nature and culture with respect to what is edible, how itshould be prepared, and how it should be eaten. The con-cept of cuisine is part of a cultural system that helps in-dividuals minimize the omnivores' dilemma.

Humans and other mammals are also characterizedby their need for dietary variety. If you consume anyfood for any extended period of time, you will likelyexperience "palate fatigue" in which you lose interest inthat particular food item. In our evolutionary history, thisensured that variety would be maintained in the diet andthat the diet would more likely be balanced. The nar-rowing of the dietary niche following the Neolithic re-duced the variety of available foods, but an illusion ofvariety was maintained by preparing the same food itemsin many different ways. A trip to any supermarket's ce-real aisle will illustrate how far this idea can be pushed.The impact on our nutrition may be reflected in the sta-tistic that only two percent of Americans are followingthe recommended dietary guidelines. Bioarchaeologicalanalyses need to be incorporated into understanding thepolitical and economic dimension of contemporary nu-tritional problems. Compliance by gender, ethnicity, andclass has a prehistoric dimension.

Conclusion

Bioarchaeology as anthropology will not providesolutions to all the miseries that humans face. How-ever, it can provide insights that are essential for under-standing our relationship to our environment, how weinteracted with it throughout history, and how we areinteracting with it now. Bioarchaeology is at the fore-front in documenting the evolution and adaptation ofhuman populations and the disease consequences ofchanges that occur. The inequality that is reflected in thedifferential access to resources that characterizes muchof the contemporary world has been a part of our evolu-tionary history. We can document the increase in the gapwithin and between societies that affects the differentialsurvival based on differences in gender, race, and class.That this reality is part of our evolutionary history doesnot mean that it is "natural" and "immutable."

The esoterica of our past is often enough to driveour interest in bioarchaeology. The anthropological per-spective has moved us to concerns for the practical as-pects of everyday life. We are enriched when essentialinsights drawn from the past provide a prologue to thefuture. Understanding the successes and failures of ourancestors helps us to understand how we live and howwe die. Bioarchaeology, along with the rest of anthro-pology, should search for relevance to contemporary life.

The experience may help us understand ourselves moredeeply. Of the many reasons that we anthropologists findto apply our craft, I can think of no better justificationthan that found in the following words:

Readers who have come thus far need not be told inmany words of what the facts must already have broughtto their minds—that the study of man and civilizationis not only a matter of scientific interest, but at oncepasses into the practical business of life. We have in itthe means of understanding our lives in and our placein the world, vaguely and imperfectly it is true, but atany rate more clearly than any former generation. Theknowledge of man's course of life, from remote past tothe present, will not only help us forecast the future,but may guide us in our duty of leaving the world betterthan we found it.

These are Edward B. Tylor's (1881:439^40) wordsthat he chose to close his book, Anthropology, written overa century ago. This is advice that we can live with today.

A cknowledgments

I want to thank A. J. Kelso for reminding me about thequotes from Hrdlicka and Tylor. James Moore and BethanyTurner provided many useful editorial comments and help-ful suggestions with the material presented in this paper.

References

Aiello, L. C.1992 Body Size and Energy Requirements. In The Cam-

bridge Encyclopedia of Human Evolution. S.Bunney, S. Jones, R. Martin, and D. Pilbeam, eds.Pp. 41-45. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Aiello, Leslie C , and Peter Wheeler1995 The Expensive-Tissue Hypothesis: The Brain and

the Digestive System in Human and Primate Evo-lution. Current Anthropology 36:199-221.

Armelagos, George J.1968 Aiken's Fremont Hypothesis and the Use of Skel-

etal Material in Archaeological Interpretation.American Antiquity 33:385-386.

1969 Disease in Ancient Nubia. Science 163(864):255-259.

1994 Review of Human Paleopathology: CurrentSynthesis and Future Options (Ortner andAufderheide, eds.). Journal of Field Archaeology21:239-243.

1998 The Viral Superhighway. The Sciences 38:24-30.


Armelagos, George J., Kathleen C. Barnes, and James Lin1996 Disease in Human Evolution: The Re-Emergence

of Infectious Disease in the Third Epidemiologi-cal Transition. AnthroNotes 18(3): 1-7.

Armelagos, George J., and Peter J. Brown2002 The Body as Evidence; The Body of Evidence. In

The Backbone of History: Health and Nutrition inthe Western Hemisphere. R. Steckel and J. Rose,eds. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Armelagos, George J., David S. Carlson, and Dennis P.Van Gerven

1982 The Theoretical Foundation of Development ofSkeletal Biology. In A History of Physical Anthro-pology, 1930-1980. F. Spencer, ed. Pp. 305-328.New York: Academic.

Armelagos, George J., Alan H. Goodman, and Ken-neth Jacobs

1991 The Origins of Agriculture: Population Growthduring a Period of Declining Health. Populationand Environment 13:9-22.

Armelagos, George J., Kristi Kohlbacher, Kristy R.Collins, Jennifer Cook, and Maria Karfield-Daugherty

2002 Tetracycline Consumption in Prehistory. In Tet-racyclines in Biology, Chemistry and Medicine.M. Nelson, W. Hillen, and R. A. Greenwald, eds.Pp. 217-235. Basil: Birkhauser.

Barrett, Ronald, Christopher W. Kuzawa, ThomasMcDade, and George J. Armelagos

1998 Emerging Infectious Disease and the Third Epi-demiological Transition. In Annual Review of An-thropology 27:247-271.

Bates, Marston1953 Human Ecology. In Anthropology Today. Alfred

L. Kroeber, ed. Pp. 700-713. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press.

Belcher, Robert, Frank Will iams, and George J.Armelagos

2002 Misidentification of Meroitic Nubians UsingFordisc 2.0 (Abstract). American Journal ofPhysical Anthropology 117:42.

Bellisle, F.1999 Glutamate and the Umami Taste: Sensory, Meta-

bolic, Nutritional and Behavioural Consider-

ations. A Review of the Literature Published inthe Last 10 Years. Neuroscience and Biobehav-ioural Reviews 23(3):423-438.

Bentley, G. R., R. Aunger, A. M. Harrigan, M. Jenike,R. C. Bailey, and P. T. Ellison

1999 Women's Strategies to Alleviate Nutritional Stressin a Rural African Society. Social Science andMedicine 48(2): 149-162.

Binford, Lewis R.1962 Archaeology as Anthropology. American Antiq-

uity 28:217-225.1964 A Consideration of Archaeological Research De-

sign. American Antiquity 29:425-441.

Binford, Lewis R., and S. R. Binford, eds.1968 New Perspectives in Archaeology. Chicago:

Aldine.

Blakely, Robert L., ed.1977 Biocultural Adaptation in Prehistoric America.

Athens: University of Georgia Press.

Blakely, Robert L., Judith M. Harrington, and Mark R.Barnes

1997 Bones in the Basement: Postmortem Racism inNineteenth-Century Medical Training. Washing-ton, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Blakey, Michael L.1997 Skull Doctors Revisited: Intrinsic Social and Po-

litical Bias in the History of American PhysicalAnthropology with Special Reference to the Workof Ales Hrdlicka. In Race and Other Misadven-tures: Essays in Honor of Ashley Montagu in HisNinetieth Year. L. T. Reynolds and L. Lieberman,eds. Pp. 64-95. Dix Hills, NY: General Hall.

1998 The New York African Burial Ground Project: AnExamination of Enslaved Lives, a Construction ofAncestral Ties. Transforming Anthropology7(l):53-58.

Blakey, Michael, and George J. Armelagos1985 Deciduous Dentition and Prenatal and Postnatal

Stress in Prehistoric Americans from DicksonMounds. American Journal of Physical Anthro-pology 66:371-380.

Boserup, Ester1965 The Conditions of Agricultural Growth: The Eco-


nomics of Agriculture under Population Pressure.Chicago: Aldine.

Boyd, William C.1950 Genetics and the Races of Man. Boston: Little

Brown and Company.

Braun, M. W., D. C. Cook, and S. Pfeiffer1998 DNA from Mycobacterium Tuberculosis Complex

Identified in North American, Pre-ColumbianHuman Skeletal Remains. Journal of Archeologi-cal Science 25:271-277.

Buikstra, Jane E.1977 Biocultural Dimensions of Archaeological Study:

A Regional Perspective. In Biocultural Adaptationin Prehistoric America. R. L. Blakely, ed. Pp. 67-84. Athens: University of Georgia Press.

Carlson, David S., and Dennis P. Van Gerven1977 Masticatory Function and Post-Pleistocene Evo-

lution in Nubia. American Journal of PhysicalAnthropology 46:495-506.

Cavalli-Sforza, L. L., and E. Minch1997 Paleolithic and Neolithic Lineages in the European

Mitochondrial Gene Pool. American Journal ofHuman Genetics 61(l):247-254.

Cavalli-Sforza, L. L., and A. Piazza1993 Human Genomic Diversity in Europe: A Summary

of Recent Research and Prospects for the Future.European Journal of Human Genetics 1(1):3-18.

Cavalli-Sforza, L. L., A. Piazza, P. Menozzi, and J.Mountain

1988 Reconstruction of Human Evolution: BringingTogether Genetic, Archaeological, and LinguisticData. Proceedings of the National Academy ofSciences of the United States of America85(16):6002-6006.

Charles, Douglas K., and Jane E. Buikstra2001 Siting, Sighting, and Citing the Dead. In The Space

and Place of Death. H. Silverman and D. Small,eds. Pp. 13-25. Archeological Papers of the Ameri-can Anthropological Association, 11. Arlington,VA: American Anthropological Association.

Childe, V. Gordon1951 Man Makes Himself. New York: Mentor.

Cohen, M. N.1975 Population Pressure and the Origins of Agricul-

ture: An Archaeological Example from the Coastof Peru. In Population, Ecology and Social Evo-lution. S. Polger, ed. Pp. 79-121. The Hague:Mouton.The Food Crisis in Prehistory. New Haven; Yale1977University Press.

Cohen, Mark Nathan, and George J. Armelagos1984 Paleopathology at the Origins of Agriculture. New

York: Academic.

Cook, Delia Collins1979 Subsistence Base and Health in Prehistoric Illi-

nois Valley: Evidence from the Human Skeleton.Medical Anthropology 3( 1): 109-124.

Cook, Delia Collins, and Jane E. Buikstra1979 Health and Differential Survival in Prehistoric

Populations: Prenatal Dental Defects. Ameri-can Journal of Physical Anthropology 51(4);649-664.

Coon, Carleton S.1962 The Origin of Races. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.1965 The Living Races of Man. New York: Alfred A.

Knopf.

Cuthbertson, W. F.1999 Evolution of Infant Nutrition. British Journal of

Nutrition 81(5):359-371.

Cybulski, Jerome S.1994 In the Wake of Contact: Biological Responses

to Conquest. In In the Wake of Conquest: Bio-logical Responses to Conquest. C. S. Larsenand G. R. Milner, eds. Pp. 75-85. New York:Wiley-Liss.

Desor, J. A., O. Mailer, and L. S. Greene1977 Preference for Sweet in Humans: Infants, Children

and Adults. In Taste and Development, the Gen-esis of Sweet Preference. J. M. WifYenbach, ed.Pp. 161-167. Fogarty International Center Pro-ceedings, 32. Bethesda, MD: National Institutesof Health.

Dickel, David M.1984 Central California: Prehistoric Subsistence

Changes and Health. In Paleopathology at the


Origins of Agriculture. M. N. Cohen and G. J.Armelagos, eds. Pp. 439-461. Orlando, FL: Aca-demic.

Drewnowski, A., D. D. Krahn, M. A. Demitrack, K.Nairn, and B. A. Gosnell

1992 Taste Responses and Preferences for Sweet High-Fat Foods: Evidence for Opioid Involvement.Physiology & Behavior 51:371-379.

Drexler, Madeline2002 Secret Agents: The Menace of Emerging Disease.

Washington, DC: John Henry Press.

Farmer, Paul1996 Social Inequalities and Emerging Infectious Dis-

eases. Emerging Infectious Diseases 2:259-269.

Goodman, Alan H., and George J. Armelagos1988 Childhood Stress, Cultural Buffering, and De-

creased Longevity in Prehistoric Populations.American Anthropologist 90:936-944.

1989 Infant and Childhood Morbidity and MortalityRisks in Archaeological Populations. World Ar-chaeology 21:225-243.

Goodman, Alan H., George J. Armelagos, and JeromeC. Rose

1980 Enamel Hypoplasias as Indicators of Stress inThree Prehistoric Populations from Illinois. Hu-man Biology 52:515-528.

Goodman, Alan H., John Lallo, George J. Armelagos,and Jerome C. Rose

1984 Health Changes at Dickson Mounds (A.D. 950-1300). In Paleopathology at the Origins of Agri-culture. M. N. Cohen and G. J. Armelagos, eds.Pp. 271-305. Orlando, FL: Academic.

Goodman, Alan H., Debra L. Martin, and George J.Armelagos

1995 The Biological Consequences of Inequality inPrehistory. Rivista di Anthropologia (Roma)73:123-131.

Goodman, Alan H., Debra Martin, George J. Armelagos,and George Clark

1984 Indications of Stress from Bones and Teeth. InPaleopathology at the Origins of Agriculture. M.N. Cohen and G. J. Armelagos, eds. Pp. 13-49.Orlando, FL: Academic.

Goodman, Alan H., Jerome C. Rose, and George J.Armelagos

1984 The Chronological Distribution of Enamel Hypo-plasia from Prehistoric Dickson Mounds. Ameri-can Journal of Physical Anthropology 65:259-266.

Goodman, Alan H., R. Brooke Thomas, Alan C.Swedlund, and George J. Armelagos

1988 Biocultural Perspectives on Stress in Prehistoric,Historical and Contemporary Population Research.Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 31:169-202.

Grauer, Anne L., and Patricia Stuart-Macadam, eds.1998 Sex and Gender in Paleopathological Perspective.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hooton, Earnest A.1930 The Indians of Pecos Pueblo. New Haven: Yale

University Press.

Howells, William W.1973 Cranial Variation in Man; a Study by Multivariate

Analysis of Patterns of Difference among RecentHuman Populations. Papers of the Peabody Mu-seum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard Uni-versity, 67. Cambridge, MA: Peabody Museum ofArchaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University.

1989 Skull Shapes and the Map: Craniometric Analy-ses in the Dispersion of Modern Homo. Papers ofthe Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnol-ogy, Harvard University, 79. Cambridge, MA:Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology,Harvard University.

Howells, William W., and J. Michael Crichton1966 Craniometry and Multivariate Analysis. Cam-

bridge, MA: Peabody Museum.

Hrdlicka, Ales1918 Physical Anthropology—Its Scope and Aims: Its

History and Present State in America. AmericanJournal of Physical Anthropology 1:3~23.

Hughes, James M.2001 Emerging Infectious Diseases: A CDC Perspec-

tive. Emerging Infectious Diseases 7(3 Supple-ment) :494-496.

Johnson, Matthew1999 Archaeological Theory: An Introduction. Oxford:

Blackwell.


Jorde, L. B., A. R. Rogers, M. Bamshad, W. S. Watkins,P. Krakowiak, S. Sung, J. Kere, and H. C. Harpending

1997 Microsatellite Diversity and the Demographic His-tory of Modern Humans. Proceedings of the Na-tional Academy of Sciences of the United States ofAmerica 94(7):3100-3103.

Katz, S., L. Hediger, and L. Valleroy1974 Traditional Maize Processing Techniques in the

New World. Science 184:765-773.

Katzenberg, M. Anne, D. Ann Herring, and Shelley R.Saunders

1996 Weaning and Infant Mortality: Evaluating the Skel-etal Evidence. Yearbook of Physical Anthropol-ogy 39:1"'7-199.

Lallo, John W., Jerome R. Rose, and George J. Armelagos1978 Paleoepidemiology of Infectious Disease in the

Dickson Mounds Population. Medical College ofVirginia Quarterly 14(1): 17-23.

Larsen, Clark S.1984 Health and Disease in Prehistoric Georgia: The

Transition to Agriculture. In Paleopathology at theOrigins of Agriculture. M. N. Cohen and G. J.Armelagos, eds. Pp. 367-392. Orlando, FL: Aca-demic.

1987 Bioarchaeological Interpretation of SubsistenceEconomy and Behavior from Human Skeletal Re-mains. Advances in Archaeological Method andTheory 10:27-56.

1997 Bioarchaeology: Interpreting Behavior from theHuman Skeleton. New York: Cambridge Univer-sity Press.

Leathers, Amanda, Jamie Edwards, and George J.Armelagos

2002 Assessment of Classification of Crania UsingFordisc 2.0: Nubian X-Group Test (Abstract).American Journal of Physical Anthropology117:99-100,

Lederberg, Joshua1998 Emerging Infections: An Evolutionary Perspective.

Emerging Infectious Diseases 4:366-371.

Lee, Richard1968 What Hunters Do for a Living, or, How to Make

Out on Scarce Resources. In Man the Hunter. R.Lee and I. Devore, eds. Pp. 30-48. Chicago: Aldine.

Leone, Mark P.1995 Historical Archaeology of Capitalism. American

A nthropologist 97:251-268.

McNeill, William H.1976 Plagues and People. Garden City, NY: Anchor/

Doubleday.

Martin, Debra L., and George J. Armelagos1979 Morphometrics of Compact Bone: An Example

from Sudanese Nubia. American Journal of Physi-cal Anthropology 51:571-577.

Martin, Debra L., and D. W. Frayer, eds.1997 Troubled Times: Archaeological and Osteologi-

cal Evidence for Violence in Past Populations.New York: Gordon and Breach.

May, J. M.1960 The Ecology of Human Disease. Annals of the New

York Academy of Science 84:789-794.

Milton, K.1993 Diet and Primate Evolution. Scientific American

269(Aug.):86-93.2000 Back to Basics: Why Foods of Wild Primates Have

Relevance for Modern Human Health. Nutrition16(7-8):480-483.

Mintz, Sidney1979 Time, Sugar and Sweetness. Marxist Perspectives

Winter:56-72.1985 Sweetness and Power: The Place of Sugar in Mod-

ern History. New York: Penguin Books.

Morton, Samuel G.1839 Crania Americana. Philadelphia: Dobson.1844 Crania Aegyptica. Philadelphia: Penington.

Murphy, S. P., D. Rose, M. Hudes, and F. E. Viteri1992 Demographic and Economic Factors Associated

with Dietary Quality for Adults in the 1987-88Nationwide Food Consumption Survey. Journalof the American Dietetic Association 92:1352—1357.

Neumann, George K.1952 Archeology and Race in the American Indian. In

Archeology of Eastern United States. J. B. Grif-fin, ed. Pp. 13-34. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress.


1954a Archeology and Race in the American Indian.Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 8:213-242.

1954b Measurements and Indices of American IndianVarieties. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology8:243-255.

Omran, A. R.1971 The Epidemiologic Transition: A Theory of the

Epidemiology of Population Change. MillbankMemorial Fund Quarterly 49:509-538.

Ortner, Donald J., and Arthur C. Aufderheide1991 Human Paleopathology: Current Syntheses and

Future Options. Washington, DC: SmithsonianInstitution Press.

Owsley, S. D., and R. L. Jantz1996 Fordisc 2.0: Personal Computer Forensic Dis-

criminant Functions. Knoxville: University ofTennessee.

Rose, J. C.1977 Defective Enamel Histology of Prehistoric Teeth

from Illinois. American Journal of Physical An-thropology 46:439-446.

Rozin, Elizabeth1982 The Structure of Cuisine. In The Psychobiology of

Human Food Selection. L. M. Barker, ed. Pp. 189-203. Westport, CT: AVI Publishing.

Ruff, C. B.2000 Body Size, Body Shape, and Long Bone Strength

in Modern Humans. Journal of Human Evolution38:269-290.

Schwarz, Henry P., and Margaret J. Schoeninger1991 Stable Isotope Analyses in Human Nutritional

Ecology. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology34:283-321.

Terrell, John Edward, and Pamela J. Stewart1996 The Paradox of Human Population Genetics at the

End of the Twentieth Century. Reviews in Anthro-pology 25:13-33.

Torroni A., M. T. Lott, M. F. Cabell, Y.-S. Chen, L.Lavergne, and D. C. Wallace

1994 MtDNA and the Origin of Caucasians: Identifica-tion of Ancient Caucasian-Specific Haplogroups,One of Which Is Prone to a Recurrent Somatic

Duplication in the D~Loop Region. American Jour-nal of Human Genetics 55:760-776.

Torroni, A., T. G. Schurr, M. F. Cabell, M. D. Brown,J. V. Neel, M. Larsen, D. G. Smith, C. M. Vullo, andD. C. Wallace

1993 Asian Affinities and Continental Radiation of theFour Founding Native American MtDNAs. Ameri-can Journal of Human Genetics 53:563-590.

Tylor, Edward B.1881 Anthropology: An Introduction to the Study of Man

and Civilization. Vols. 1 and 2. London: Watts & Co.

Van Gerven, Dennis P., George J. Armelagos, andArthur Rohr

1976 Continuity and Change in Cranial Morphology ofThree Nubian Archaeological Populations. Man12:270-277.

Washburn, Sherwood L.1951 The New Physical Anthropology. Transactions of

the New York Academy of Science, Series II13(7):298-304.

1953a The New Physical Anthropology. Yearbook ofPhysical Anthropology 7:124-130.

1953b The Strategy of Physical Anthropology. In Anthro-pology Today. A. L. Kroeber, ed. Pp. 714-727.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

White, Christine D., and George J. Armelagos1997 Osteopenia and Stable Isotopes Ratios in Bone

Collagen of Nubian Female Mummies. AmericanJournal of Physical Anthropology 103:185-199.

White, Leslie A.1943 Energy and the Evolution of Culture. American

Anthropologist 45:335-356.1959 The Evolution of Culture: The Development of

Civilization to the Fall of Rome. New York:McGraw-Hill.

WHO (World Health Organization)1992 International Statistical Classification of Diseases

and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision.Geneva. WHO.

2001 The World Health Report 2001. Geneva: WHO.

Willey, Gordon R., and Jeremy A. Sabloff1974 A History of American Archaeology. San Fran-

cisco: Freeman.

" —-— George J. Armelagos

Wrangham, R. W., J. H. Jones, G. Laden, D. Pilbeam,and N. Conklin Britain

1999 The Raw and the Stolen: Cooking and the Ecol-ogy of Human Origins. Current Anthropology40:567-594.

Wylie, A.1992 The Interplay of Evidential Constraints and Po-

litical Interests: Recent Archaeological Researchon Gender. American Antiquity 59:545-555.

bioarchaeology as anthropology

Documents