DOCSLIB.ORG

Bioarchaeology International Volume 1, Numbers 1–2: 1–18 DOI: 10.5744/Bi.2017.1005

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Bioarchaeology International Volume 1, Numbers 1–2: 1–18 DOI: 10.5744/Bi.2017.1005 Bioarchaeology International Volume 1, Numbers 1–2: 1–18 DOI: 10.5744/bi.2017.1005 Stronger Together: Advancing a Global Bioarchaeology Brenda J. Bakera* and Sabrina C. Agarwalb aCenter for Bio archae ol o gi cal Research, School of Human Evolution & Social Change, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA bDepartment of Anthropology, University of California Berkeley, 232 Kroeber Hall, Berkeley, CA, USA *Correspondence to: Brenda Baker, Center for Bio archae ol o gi cal Research, School of Human Evolution & Social Change, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-2402 e-mail: bjbaker@asu .edu ABSTRACT Bioarchaeology is a relatively young field that aims to improve our understanding of life, death, and interrela- tionships among past humans around the globe. The discipline grew out of 1960s American processual archae- ology 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 the- ory to situate past peoples within their biological, cultural, and environmental circumstances. The field empha- sizes 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; osteol- ogy; osteoarchaeology; paleopathology Bioarchaeology is a burgeoning, integrative field that biological remains or studying material culture alone, spans the globe. Bioarchaeology is often thought to integrating these components permits a more com- encompass the study of only the human remains plete understanding of how people experienced an found within archaeological sites, frequently divorced array of circumstances over the course of their own from the contexts in which they were found. The lives and through multiple generations. Differing sub- physical remains of people store a record of their bio- sistence practices, access to resources, exposure to logical attributes, providing information on illnesses hazards, and changes in economic, political, religious, or trauma they survived or that may have contributed or environmental factors over time and across vast ar- to their deaths, their daily activities, biological affin- eas of the world are topics explored by bioarchaeol- ities, and more. Equally informative are the differ- ogists. Learning how past peoples were affected by ent ways that people were treated in death by those pathogens, climate change, and immigration, for ex- who survived them. Rather than investigating only the ample, provides insight into contemporary issues and Copyright © 2017 University of Florida Press 2 Stronger Together: Advancing a Global Bioarchaeology problems. Such studies demonstrate how bioarchaeol- bioarchaeology emphasizes contextualization and in- ogy is relevant to multiple stakeholders and can in- tegration of social theory with biological data from form the general public. human remains (Buikstra et al. 2011; Buikstra and Beck 2006). Clark Larsen’s definition of bioarchaeol- ogy focuses primarily on the interpretation of behav- The Development of Bioarchaeology ior from the human skeleton (as per the subtitle of his book; Larsen 1997, 2015). This perspective separated Bioarchaeology as a field of research has had different bioarchaeology from wider aspects of archaeological trajectories related to variability in academic tradi- and social theory. Larsen’s form of bioarchaeology has tions between North America and those in Britain, begun to recognize the linkage of archaeology and bi- France, and other countries (for detailed reviews, see ological anthropology, acknowledging new develop- Buikstra et al. 2011; Knüsel 2010; O’Donnabhain and ments that situate human biology within “the social Lozada 2014; Sheridan 2017). In North America, bio- past” (Larsen and Walker 2010:380) and relate to as- archaeology grew out of processual archaeology and pects of identity, gender, and other “social and cul- the “New Physical Anthropology” in the 1950s and tural forces that leave their impression on the skeletal 1960s, which began a shift from typological and de- body” (Larsen 2015:xi). Clearly, the lines among these scriptive studies to problem-oriented investigations of different perspectives both within and beyond North populations embedded within a biocultural paradigm America are blurring as the field has matured. (Armelagos 2003; Armelagos and Van Gerven 2003; The term “bioarchaeology,” however, is not univer- Zuckerman and Armelagos 2011; Zuckerman and sally understood or applied globally. In the United Martin 2016a). This “bio-cultural” perspective, which States, “bioarchaeology” pertains to both mortuary considers biological, cultural, and environmental fac- site archaeology and human osteology, though these tors in the study of past human populations, was pro- components frequently have been treated separately mulgated by Don Brothwell (1967) of the UK (see also (see Goldstein 2006) and often continue to be separate Roberts 2006). Incorporation of human osteologists purviews of archaeologists and “anthropologists” in and biological anthropologists, including George Ar- many parts of the world, particularly where archaeol- melagos, in large-scale rescue excavations of mortu- ogists are trained in classical or Near Eastern studies ary sites in southern Egypt and northern Sudan in the (see, e.g., Sheridan 2017). In France, different termi- 1960s accelerated this paradigm shift (Baker 2016:183– nology is used for investigation of ritual surrounding 184; see Martin and Zuckerman 2016 for a review of death (les gestes funéraires), the study of field anthro- Armelagos’s influence on biocultural research). While pology (anthropologie de terrain), or ancient burial the term “bioarchaeology” initially appeared in the (archéothanatologie) as it is now more commonly late 1950s (Sheridan 2017:112) and was applied by Gra- known (Knüsel 2010:68–69). Henri Duday’s work, hame Clark (1972) to the study of faunal remains from commencing in the 1970s (e.g., Duday 1978), has be- a Mesolithic site in Yorkshire (northern England), it come widely influential, particularly since its more was later used by Jane Buikstra (1977:69) to describe a recent dissemination in English (e.g., Duday 2006, regionally based, interdisciplinary research program 2009), and is informing studies of body treatment, ta- in the lower Illinois River Valley that integrated ar- phonomy, and commingling (e.g., Geber et al. and chaeology and human osteology to investigate “bio- Haddow and Knüsel in this issue). cultural change within the Woodland period.” Although the biocultural paradigm links both In North America, the merging of archaeological British and American perspectives, “bioarchaeology” and biological anthropological perspectives in the in- in the UK refers to the study of all ancient biological vestigation of human remains on a regional scale over remains, including those of humans, animals, and time has led to an integrative biocultural approach plants, and more generally to environmental archae- and promoted population-level analyses that marked ology and paleoecology (Knüsel 2010:62–63). The a shift from the mostly descriptive studies that fo- study of faunal and human skeletal remains came to cused on measurement and classification of people be known as “osteoarchaeology” (Roberts 2006:418). and their diseases. Within American bioarchaeol- In the UK, osteoarchaeologists are found in depart- ogy, however, different schools of thought developed ments of archaeology, whereas North American bio- within the nascent discipline (Buikstra and Beck archaeologists are typically housed in anthropology 2006; Rakita 2014; Stojanowski and Duncan 2014). programs. In both the UK and North America, this The biocultural approach was championed by George field grew rapidly in the 1980s and 1990s. Training Armelagos, his colleagues, and their students, who programs at the master’s degree level were developed acquired broad training across the subfields of anthro- at multiple universities in the UK (Roberts 2006:430– pology (Zuckerman and Martin 2016b). Jane Buikstra’s 431), but only one specific master of arts graduate Baker and Agarwal 3 curriculum in bioarchaeology developed in the United developed to address them in contemporary bio- States. Designed in the mid-1980s by a group of Ari- archae ol o gi cal research (DeWitte and Stojanowski zona State University archaeologists and biological 2015;
Load more

Recommended publications
  • From Amphipolis to Mosul, New Approaches to Cultural Heritage Preservation in the Eastern Mediterranean
    THE FUTURE OF THE PAST: From Amphipolis to Mosul, New Approaches to Cultural Heritage Preservation in the Eastern Mediterranean Editors Konstantinos Chalikias, Maggie Beeler, Ariel Pearce, and Steve Renette http://futureofthepast.wix.com/culturalheritage HERITAGE, CONSERVATION & ARCHAEOLOGY ARCHAEOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA Contents 1. The Future of the Past: From Amphipolis to Mosul, New Approaches to Cultural Heritage Preservation in the Eastern Mediterranean .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Konstantinos Chalikias, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Maggie Beeler, Bryn Mawr College, Ariel Pearce, Temple University, and Steve Renette, University of Pennsylvania 2. Go, Do Good! Responsibility and the Future of Cultural Heritage in the Eastern Mediterranean in the 21st Century ........... 5 Morag M. Kersel, DePaul University 3. Contested Antiquities, Contested Histories: The City of David as an Example ........................................................................... 11 Rannfrid I. Thelle, Wichita State University 4. Cultural Racketeering in Egypt—Predicting Patterns in Illicit Activity: Quantitative Tools of the 21st-Century Archaeologist .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 21 Katie A. Paul, The Antiquities Coalition
    [Show full text]
  • ANTY 513.01: Seminar in Bioarchaeology and Skeletal Biology
    University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Syllabi Course Syllabi Spring 1-2016 ANTY 513.01: Seminar in Bioarchaeology and Skeletal Biology Corey Ragsdale University of Montana, Missoula Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/syllabi Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Ragsdale, Corey, "ANTY 513.01: Seminar in Bioarchaeology and Skeletal Biology" (2016). Syllabi. 4657. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/syllabi/4657 This Syllabus is brought to you for free and open access by the Course Syllabi at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Syllabi by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Anthropology 513 Bioarchaeology Seminar Instructor: Dr. Corey Ragsdale Office: Social Science 217 Email: [email protected] Office hours: TR 2:00 to 3:30 Course Description Bioarchaeology allows us to ‘people’ the past. To do this, bioarchaeologists follow two general rules of thumb. First, they contextualize human remains in physical space, cultural milieu, and pre-historic time. That is, skeletonized and mummified bodies are never examined without also considering their associated archaeological materials. Second, bioarchaeologists regard ancient bodies as bio-cultural phenomena. Human biology is impacted directly by culture, and vice versa. With these two ideas in hand, we will explore bioarchaeology’s history, development, major topical concerns, and debates. We will also engage critically with categories and assumptions about race, sex/gender, age, ethnicity, disease and disability, violence, and body parts. To conclude the semester, we will reflect upon bioarchaeology’s relevance in contemporary politics.
    [Show full text]
  • Bioarchaeology (Anthropological Archaeology) - Mario ŠLAUS
    PHYSICAL (BIOLOGICAL) ANTHROPOLOGY - Bioarchaeology (Anthropological Archaeology) - Mario ŠLAUS BIOARCHAEOLOGY (ANTHROPOLOGICAL ARCHAEOLOGY) Mario ŠLAUS Department of Archaeology, Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Zagreb, Croatia. Keywords: Bioarchaeology, archaeological, forensic, antemortem, post-mortem, perimortem, traumas, Cribra orbitalia, Harris lines, Tuberculosis, Leprosy, Treponematosis, Trauma analysis, Accidental trauma, Intentional trauma, Osteological, Degenerative disease, Habitual activities, Osteoarthritis, Schmorl’s nodes, Tooth wear Contents 1. Introduction 1.1. Definition of Bioarchaeology 1.2. History of Bioarchaeology 2. Analysis of Skeletal Remains 2.1. Excavation and Recovery 2.2. Human / Non-Human Remains 2.3. Archaeological / Forensic Remains 2.4. Differentiating between Antemortem/Postmortem/Perimortem Traumas 2.5. Determination of Sex 2.6. Determination of Age at Death 2.6.1. Age Determination in Subadults 2.6.2. Age Determination in Adults. 3. Skeletal and dental markers of stress 3.1. Linear Enamel Hypoplasia 3.2. Cribra Orbitalia 3.3. Harris Lines 4. Analyses of dental remains 4.1. Caries 4.2. Alveolar Bone Disease and Antemortem Tooth Loss 5. Infectious disease 5.1. Non–specific Infectious Diseases 5.2. Specific Infectious Disease 5.2.1. Tuberculosis 5.2.2. Leprosy 5.2.3. TreponematosisUNESCO – EOLSS 6. Trauma analysis 6.1. Accidental SAMPLETrauma CHAPTERS 6.2. Intentional Trauma 7. Osteological and dental evidence of degenerative disease and habitual activities 7.1. Osteoarthritis 7.2. Schmorl’s Nodes 7.3. Tooth Wear Caused by Habitual Activities 8. Conclusion Glossary Bibliography Biographical Sketch ©Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS) PHYSICAL (BIOLOGICAL) ANTHROPOLOGY - Bioarchaeology (Anthropological Archaeology) - Mario ŠLAUS 1. Introduction 1.1. Definition of Bioarchaeology Bioarchaeology is the study of human biological remains within their cultural (archaeological) context.
    [Show full text]
  • Issue Information
    Juengst and Becker, Editors Editors and Becker, Juengst of Community The Bioarchaeology 28 AP3A No. The Bioarchaeology of Community Sara L. Juengst and Sara K. Becker, Editors Contributions by Sara K. Becker Deborah Blom Jered B. Cornelison Sylvia Deskaj Lynne Goldstein Sara L. Juengst Ann M. Kakaliouras Wendy Lackey-Cornelison William J. Meyer Anna C. Novotny Molly K. Zuckerman 2017 Archeological Papers of the ISSN 1551-823X American Anthropological Association, Number 28 aapaa_28_1_cover.inddpaa_28_1_cover.indd 1 112/05/172/05/17 22:26:26 PPMM The Bioarchaeology of Community Sara L. Juengst and Sara K. Becker, Editors Contributions by Sara K. Becker Deborah Blom Jered B. Cornelison Sylvia Deskaj Lynne Goldstein Sara L. Juengst Ann M. Kakaliouras Wendy Lackey-Cornelison William J. Meyer Anna C. Novotny Molly K. Zuckerman 2017 Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, Number 28 ARCHEOLOGICAL PAPERS OF THE AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION Lynne Goldstein, General Series Editor Number 28 THE BIOARCHAEOLOGY OF COMMUNITY 2017 Aims and Scope: The Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association (AP3A) is published on behalf of the Archaeological Division of the American Anthropological Association. AP3A publishes original monograph-length manuscripts on a wide range of subjects generally considered to fall within the purview of anthropological archaeology. There are no geographical, temporal, or topical restrictions. Organizers of AAA symposia are particularly encouraged to submit manuscripts, but submissions need not be restricted to these or other collected works. Copyright and Copying (in any format): © 2017 American Anthropological Association. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form or by any means without the prior permission in writing from the copyright holder.
    [Show full text]
  • Forensic Facial Reconstruction SUBJECT FORENSIC SCIENCE
    SUBJECT FORENSIC SCIENCE Paper No. and Title PAPER No. 11: Forensic Anthropology Module No. and Title MODULE No. 21: Forensic Facial Reconstruction Module Tag FSC_P11_M21 FORENSIC SCIENCE PAPER No. 11: Forensic Anthropology MODULE No. 21: Forensic Facial Reconstruction TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Learning Outcomes 2. Introduction 2.1. History 3. Types of Identification 3.1. Circumstantial Identification 3.2. Positive Identification 4. Types of Reconstruction 4.1. Two-Dimensional Reconstruction 4.2. Three- Dimensional Reconstruction 4.3. Superimposition 5. Techniques for creating facial reconstruction 6. Steps of facial reconstruction 7. Limitations of Facial Reconstruction 8. Summary FORENSIC SCIENCE PAPER No. 11: Forensic Anthropology MODULE No. 21: Forensic Facial Reconstruction 1. Learning Outcomes After studying this module, you will be able to know- About facial reconstruction About types of identification and reconstruction About various techniques of facial reconstruction and steps of facial reconstruction. About limitations of facial reconstruction 2. Introduction Amalgamation of artistry with forensic science, osteology, anatomy and anthropology to recreate the face of an individual from its skeletal remains is known as Forensic Facial reconstruction. It is also known as forensic facial approximation. It recreates the individual’s face from features of skull. It is used by anthropologists, forensic investigators and archaeologists to help in portraying historical faces, identification of victims of crime or illustrate the features if fossil human ancestors. Two and three dimensional approaches are available for facial reconstruction. In forensic science, it is one of the most controversial and subjective technique. This method is successfully used inspite of this controversy. There are two types of methods of reconstruction which are used i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • The Global History of Paleopathology
    OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST-PROOF, 01/31/12, NEWGEN TH E GLOBA L H ISTORY OF PALEOPATHOLOGY 000_JaneBuikstra_FM.indd0_JaneBuikstra_FM.indd i 11/31/2012/31/2012 44:03:58:03:58 PPMM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST-PROOF, 01/31/12, NEWGEN 000_JaneBuikstra_FM.indd0_JaneBuikstra_FM.indd iiii 11/31/2012/31/2012 44:03:59:03:59 PPMM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST-PROOF, 01/31/12, NEWGEN TH E GLOBA L H ISTORY OF PALEOPATHOLOGY Pioneers and Prospects EDITED BY JANE E. BUIKSTRA AND CHARLOTTE A. ROBERTS 3 000_JaneBuikstra_FM.indd0_JaneBuikstra_FM.indd iiiiii 11/31/2012/31/2012 44:03:59:03:59 PPMM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST-PROOF, 01/31/12, NEWGEN 1 Oxford University Press Oxford University Press, Inc., publishes works that further Oxford University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education. Oxford New York Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto With o! ces in Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore South Korea Switzerland " ailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam Copyright © #$%# by Oxford University Press, Inc. Published by Oxford University Press, Inc. %&' Madison Avenue, New York, New York %$$%( www.oup.com Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of Oxford University Press. CIP to come ISBN-%): ISBN $–%&- % ) * + & ' ( , # Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper 000_JaneBuikstra_FM.indd0_JaneBuikstra_FM.indd iivv 11/31/2012/31/2012 44:03:59:03:59 PPMM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST-PROOF, 01/31/12, NEWGEN To J.
    [Show full text]
  • Courage and Thoughtful Scholarship = Indigenous Archaeology Partnerships
    FORUM COURAGE AND THOUGHTFUL SCHOLARSHIP = INDIGENOUS ARCHAEOLOGY PARTNERSHIPS Dale R. eroes Robert McGhee's recent lead-in American Antiquity article entitled Aboriginalism and Problems of Indigenous archaeology seems to emphasize the pitfalls that can occur in "indige nolls archaeology." Though the effort is l1ever easy, I would empha­ size an approach based on a 50/50 partnership between the archaeological scientist and the native people whose past we are attempting to study through our field alld research techniques. In northwestern North America, we have found this approach important in sharillg ownership of the scientist/tribal effort, and, equally important, in adding highly significant (scientif­ ically) cullUral knowledge ofTribal members through their ongoing cultural transmission-a concept basic to our explana­ tion in the field of archaeology and anthropology. Our work with ancient basketry and other wood and fiber artifacts from waterlogged Northwest Coast sites demonstrates millennia ofcultl/ral cOlltinuity, often including reg ionally distinctive, highly guarded cultural styles or techniques that tribal members continue to use. A 50/50 partnership means, and allows, joint ownership that can only expand the scientific description and the cultural explanation through an Indigenous archaeology approach. El artIculo reciente de Robert McGhee en la revista American Antiquity, titulado: Aborigenismo y los problemas de la Arque­ ologia Indigenista, pC/recen enfatizar las dificultades que pueden ocurrir en la "arqueologfa indigenista
    [Show full text]
  • Course Outline of Record Los Medanos College 2700 East Leland Road Pittsburg CA 94565 (925) 439-2181
    Course Outline of Record Los Medanos College 2700 East Leland Road Pittsburg CA 94565 (925) 439-2181 Course Title: Introduction to Archaeology Subject Area/Course Number: ANTHR-004 New Course OR Existing Course Instructor(s)/Author(s): Liana Padilla-Wilson Subject Area/Course No.: Anthropology Units: 3 Course Name/Title: Introduction to Archaeology Discipline(s): Anthropology Pre-Requisite(s): None Co-Requisite(s): None Advisories: Eligibility for ENGL-100 Catalog Description: This course is an introduction to the fundamental principles of method and theory in archaeology, beginning with the goals of archaeology, going on to consider the basic concepts of culture, time, and space, and discussing the finding and excavation of archaeological sites. Students will analyze the basic methods and theoretical approaches used by archaeologist to reconstruct the past and understand human prehistory. This includes human origins, the peoples of the globe, the origins of agriculture, ancient civilization including the Maya civilization, Classical and Historical archaeological, and finally the relevance of Archaeology today. The course includes an analysis of the nature of scientific inquiry; the history and interdisciplinary nature of archaeological research; dating techniques, methods of survey, excavation, analysis, and interpretation; cultural resource management, professional ethics; and cultural change and sequences. The inclusion of the interdisciplinary approach utilized in this field will provide students with the most up to data interpretation of human origins, the reconstruction of human behavior, and the emergence of cultural, identity, and human existence. Schedule Description : Do you want to be an archaeologist? Have you always wanted to do real life archaeological excavations? In this course you will play a detective, but the mysteries are far more complex and harder to solve than most crimes.
    [Show full text]
  • Archaeology and Development / Peter G. Gould
    Theme01: Archaeology and Development / Peter G. Gould Poster T01-91P / Mohammed El Khalili / Managing Change in an ever-Changing Archeological Landscape: Safeguard the Natural and Cultural Landscape of Jarash T01-92P / Wai Man Raymond Lee / Archaeology and Development: a Case Study under the Context of Hong Kong T01A / RY103 / SS5,SS6 T01A01 / Emmanuel Ndiema / Engaging Communities in Cultural Heritage Conservation: Perspectives from Kakapel, Western Kenya T01A02 / Paul Edward Montgomery / Branding Barbarians: The Development of Renewable Archaeotourism Destinations to Re-Present Marginalized Cultures of the Past T01A03 / Selvakumar Veerasamy / Historical Sites and Monuments and Community Development: Practical Issues and ground realities T01A04 / Yoshitaka SASAKI / Sustainable Utilization Approach to Cultural Heritage and the Benefits for Tourists and Local Communities: The Case of Akita Fortification, Akita prefecture, Japan. T01A05 / Angela Kabiru / Sustainable Development and Tourism: Issues and Challenges in Lamu old Town T01A06 / Chulani Rambukwella / ENDANGERED ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE OF THE WORLD HERITAGE CITY OF KANDY AND ITS SUBURBS IN SRI LANKA T01A07 / chandima bogahawatta / Sigiriya: World’s Oldest Living Heritage and Multi Tourist Attraction T01A08 / Shahnaj Husne Jahan Leena / Sustainable Development through Archaeological Heritage Management and Eco-Tourism at Bhitargarh in Bangladesh T01A09 / OLALEKAN AKINADE / IGBO UKWU ARCHAEOLOGICAL HERITAGE AS A BOOST TO NIGERIAN CULTURAL HERITAGE OLALEKAN AJAO AKINADE, [email protected]
    [Show full text]
  • A Multidisciplinary Validation Study of Nonhuman Animal Models For
    The author(s) shown below used Federal funding provided by the U.S. Department of Justice to prepare the following resource: Document Title: A Multidisciplinary Validation Study of Nonhuman Animal Models for Forensic Decomposition Research Author(s): Dawnie Wolfe Steadman, Ph.D., D-ABFA Document Number: 251553 Date Received: March 2018 Award Number: 2013-DN-BX-K037 This resource has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. This resource is being made publically available through the Office of Justice Programs’ National Criminal Justice Reference Service. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs National Institute of Justice Grant # 2013-DN-BX-K037 A Multidisciplinary Validation Study of Nonhuman Animal Models for Forensic Decomposition Research Submitted by: Dawnie Wolfe Steadman, Ph.D., D-ABFA Director of the Forensic Anthropology Center Professor of Anthropology 865-974-0909; [email protected] DUNS: 00-388-7891 EIN: 62-6--1636 The University of Tennessee 1 Circle Park Drive Knoxville, TN 37996-0003 Recipient Account: #R011005404 Final Report This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Purpose and Objectives of the Project Over the past century of scientific inquiry into the process of decomposition, nearly every mammal (and other taxa) has been studied.
    [Show full text]
  • NAPC FORUM 2018 Speaker Bios
    NAPC FORUM 2018 Speaker Bios As Newport Restoration Foundation's Director of Preservation, Shantia Anderheggen manages the organization's portfolio of over 80 historic properties in Newport, RI, as well as the coordinating the organization's ongoing work on its Keeping History Above Water initiative. Prior to NRF, Shantia served as Director of Easements for the National Trust for Historic Preservation, Historic Preservation Planner for the City of Newport (RI), and Historic Preservation Team Leader for Historic New England (formerly the Society for the Preservation of New England Antiquities). She is currently President of the New England Chapter of the Vernacular Architecture Forum and sits on the US ICOMOS Subcommittee for Climate Change & Heritage Knowledge Exchange. Sara André is an architectural historian with the Iowa State Historic Preservation Office. Ms. André has been working professionally in the preservation field since 1999. She has extensive experience with survey work, National Register nomination review, preservation planning, tax credit review, and regulatory review. Ms. André worked with the NJ Historic Preservation Office for 15 years, prior to joining the IA SHPO. Aaron Barlow is a newcomer to the Historic Preservation community. He graduated from the University of Utah in 2016 with a Master’s degree in City and Metropolitan Planning and now works as an Associate Planner for the City of Hutchinson. Aaron assisted in the development of the Historic Preservation Cost Comparison Tool and now uses it regularly to help property owners with their home renovation projects. Rich Barry has been working with Kärcher, a leader in cleaning technology and manufacturer, since May 2015 to advance their worldwide Cultural Sponsoring Program in the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Bioarchaeology and Social Theory
    Bioarchaeology and Social Theory Series Editor Debra L. Martin Professor of Anthropology University of Nevada Las Vegas , USA More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/11976 Lorna Tilley Theory and Practice in the Bioarchaeology of Care Lorna Tilley Australian National University Canberra, Australia Bioarchaeology and Social Theory ISBN 978-3-319-18859-1 ISBN 978-3-319-18860-7 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-18860-7 Library of Congress Control Number: 2015942688 Springer Cham Heidelberg New York Dordrecht London © Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifi cally the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfi lms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specifi c statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made.
    [Show full text]