This made many archaeologists anxious to prove that they could do whatever ethnologists could.
Those are very good things, but not the only things!
The researchers observed, anecdotally, that language development appears to be slightly delayed in the Tsimané—but this does not seem to matter.
In other words, cultural anthropology today is a lot like what Trigger describes as the “culture-historical” school of archaeology prior to 1940.
There are today social scientists who are trying to understand general social laws of historical change, but they mostly don’t identify themselves as anthropologists.
The press announcement was not accompanied by new data or scientific studies on the skeleton, which were said to be forthcoming.
I’ve written some thoughts about this discovery and its scientific importance on Medium: “Will the “most complete skeleton ever” transform human origins?
But really, I’ve heard that said about humanities papers, not scientific papers, and Van Noorden’s article acknowledges that research in the humanities tends to be more independent, with a higher fraction of research that goes uncited by other workers. The 1990 report noted that 55% of articles published between 19 hadn’t been cited in the 5 years after their publication.
But those analyses are misleading, mainly because the publications they counted included documents such as letters, corrections, meeting abstracts and other editorial material, which wouldn’t usually get cited.
By the 1950s, a growing number of archaeologists were smarting from the charge that their discipline was descriptive rather than theoretical in orientation and that they were the not very intelligent playboys of anthropology.
Many ethnologists were claiming that their own work was more nomothetic in orientation than it appears to be today (99).
Still other articles might remain uncited because they close off unproductive avenues of research, says Niklaas Buurma, a chemist at Cardiff University, UK.