This week in our Digital Methods course, I explored the unit on Mapping and how it is used to visualize research in the humanities. Although I must say that this is a tall order, as one of our readings state that “mapping in the digital humanities ranges from historical mapping of “time‐layers” to memory maps, linguistic and cultural mapping, conceptual mapping, community‐based mapping, and forms of counter‐mapping that attempt to de‐ontologize cartography and imagine new worlds” (Presner & Shepard 2015). In other words, mapping really covers a lot of ground! But it is really insightful to think about the different ways in which mapping can be used to explore research ideas. Therefore, for this blog I wanted to take the time to explore how I might be able to use maps for my own dissertation research.
For my dissertation, I am interested in investigating skeletal collection populations within the United States in order to better understand how they are biased. It is accepted in the field of forensic anthropology that skeletal collections often house lower socioeconomic individuals and are not equally representative of all individuals living within the United States today. However, I believe historically changing practices in cadaver procurement, differences in health, and other factors such as changes in reporting of personal information (age, ancestry, etc.), may be creating a larger bias than we realize and is not accounted for in research. I believe a biocultural analysis of skeletal collections that takes into account the history of each collection in the United States, the individuals within them, and the health of those individuals can better inform research using metric analyses, such as those focused on sex estimation, ancestry estimation, and secular change, among others. I hope to investigate whether the differences we see among these populations are actually a reflection of human variation or if these differences are more of a reflection of bias between skeletal collections.
And while maps may not initially seem like they might be useful to this project, I believe it would be very insightful to map out where the individuals in these skeletal collections originate. For example, the Terry Collection is currently held at the Smithsonian, but was originally curated in St. Louis, Missouri, and thus the majority of the collection actually originates from that region. However, even with that in mind, where do the individuals come from within the city of St. Louis? If I could map out origins of each individual, I might be able to compare this data to historical maps of the area, or other resources, that provide more context on health, nutrition, socioeconomic status, and other extrinsic factors that often affect skeletal remains. Plus, some curated individuals are not originally from the United States and it would be beneficial to better understand different histories of the different origins of each individual. Mapping out such data will make it easier for me to personally understand the structure of a skeletal collection and would be beneficial for any research I would like to produce for publications or outreach.
Another idea would be to use a storymap to illustrate the general steps taken for an individual to be interred in a skeletal collection. Are skeletal remains first used as a resource in the medical school? Or are individuals traveling straight from coroners and medical examiner’s offices? While these are just two different potential paths, both provide different context as to why an individual became a part of the resultant skeletal collection. Or a storymap could illustrate the history of each curator of the skeletal collections in order to better understand their personal history and potential interactions at different institutions that led to the creation and maintenance of a particular skeletal collection.
My last idea is slightly different and doesn’t follow the map of a typical world map, but aims at mapping out how each skeletal collection is organized – almost like the building’s blueprint. Would differences in structure affect what resources researchers have access to? Or would it affect the ease at which they can access certain materials? While this focuses less on the individuals within the collection, it still provides important context about the creation of research and how methods created on these skeletal collections are shaped and potentially biased. If certain resources or individuals in the skeletal collection are hard to access, it may very well mean that they are often left out of research endeavors.
All in all, here are just some of my thoughts on mapping! The next step is to of course get working on my dissertation research! As a second year doctoral student, the clock has really begun clicking and thinking about these ideas now is truly helping me approach my project in a systematic way. Hopefully, as I compile research on these skeletal collections, I can start to truly implement some of these ideas.
