Repositioning the Cobb human archive: The merger of a skeletal collection and its texts

Abstract

The W. Montague Cobb skeletal collection, mainly comprised of African Americans living in Washington, DC, before 1969, is an important collection for human biological studies of the African Diaspora. This article outlines the process of constructing an improved study sample for biocultural analysis by merging skeletal remains from the collection with their associated texts. The merging allows for the inclusion of individuals from the original series for whom we no longer have skeletons. We argue that this step is necessary to construct a data set that reflects the demographic breadth (age, ethnicity, social class) of the original collection, taking into account a substantial number of skeletons lost during storage and disuse. The mechanics of this process were informed by a critical and humanistic orientation toward human biological study built upon the following premises: (1) scientific investigation is not an objective or passive practice, nor must it be; and, (2) relevant, publically accessible human biological research requires competence with social justice issues, as well as previous and current scholarship focused on addressing those issues. This approach to sample construction engages skeletal remains as biological and social products, and enhances the social and translational implications of our research practices.

Intersectionality and trauma analysis in bioarchaeology

“…For example, de la Cova (2019, 2020), Watkins (Watkins, 2018;Watkins & Muller, 2015), and others (Hunt & Albanese, 2004;Muller et al, 2016) acknowledge the marginalized individuals who comprise the key American anatomical collections upon which biological anthropology has built its reporting standards. While bioarchaeological interpretation will never be comprehensive, since we "face bones, not people" (Fahlander, 2012, p. 139 (Bowleg, 2012;Hinze et al, 2012).…”

“…These aspects qualify as additional intersections that must be considered when examining past and historical groups. For example, de la Cova (2019, 2020), Watkins (Watkins, 2018; Watkins & Muller, 2015), and others (Hunt & Albanese, 2004; Muller et al, 2016) acknowledge the marginalized individuals who comprise the key American anatomical collections upon which biological anthropology has built its reporting standards. While bioarchaeological interpretation will never be comprehensive, since we “face bones, not people” (Fahlander, 2012, p. 139), an intersectional approach allows for a better acknowledgement of the inherent complexity of lived lives.…”

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

“…Alternatives to conflation are, to some extent, already available. The typological treatment of age cohorts, for example, has been addressed by life‐course approaches that allow persons to emerge through embodied acts and interactions within shifting landscapes and social domains (e.g., Agarwal ; Gilchrist ; Gowland ; Robb ; Sofaer , ; Watkins and Muller ). Yet there remains the challenge of positioning multiple “courses”—not just life courses but also courses of action and maneuver—in relation to one another, especially when people and things move in asynchronous ways.…”

“…In this light, what follows has a special affinity with the work of Rachel Watkins and Jennifer Muller (), whose study of the W. Montague Cobb skeletal collection led them to question a number of their own methodological assumptions and practices. In particular, Watkins and Muller came to doubt their “adherence to normative ways of categorizing research samples,” including “the use of singular categories around which data are organized such as: date of birth, date of death, geographical location, age cohort, and ethnicity” (42).…”

Interpreting injury recidivism in a rural post‐medieval male individual from Bucelas, Portugal

“…As noted by Paul Farmer (2003), the experience of suffering is not suitably revealed by statistics, and to explain it one should embed individual biographies within their cultural, social, political or economic contexts. More nuanced theoretical frameworks for the study of individual experiences of health and disease comprise the bioarcheology of care, life course perspectives and the bioarcheology of personhood (including fictive narratives) (Boutin, 2016; Glencross, 2011; Tilley, 2015b; Watkins & Muller, 2015).…”