Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Commentary: Bones, bodies and representivity in the archaeological record

Commentary: Bones, bodies and representivity in the archaeological record The study of human remains from archaeological contexts can potentially provide archaeologists with a window on how populations lived and died, what they may have eaten, whether they practised hunting and gathering or agriculture, how they coped with illness, whether they traded and if they were in conflict. However, inherent in the study of the past is its fragmentary nature, the biased samples that ‘represent’ the past, and the problems of interpretation of the remains. Palaeoepidemiological study faces all these limiting factors and more. Importantly, for instance, the plague does not affect the bones of the skeleton and therefore cannot be identified skeletally —only through biomolecular analysis can Yersinia pestis DNA be identified.1 Considering the mortality profile of a known plague cemetery population,2 however, can aid in assessing the impact of the plague on populations if biases not associated with the presence of the plague such as over-representation of males, females, or specific ages at death, are not present in the population. Waldron asserts that the plague struck populations indiscriminately and therefore one might expect to see a ‘true’ representation of the once living population represented by the mortality profile. Conversely, a population not suffering from the impact of the plague would show a different mortality profile. The difference, however, will only occur if the context (i.e. socioeconomic and environmental) from which the non-plague cemetery derives is different to that of the plague cemetery. To construct a mortality profile one firstly needs to determine the age and sex of each skeleton. This can be a difficult task. The sex of non-adult skeletons cannot be determined without biomolecular analysis,3 and adult skeletons are problematic to age because of different rates of ageing within and between the sexes.4 Research has shown that there is a tendency to underage older adults and overage younger adults,4 whilst older female skeletons appear masculine and younger male skeletons look feminine.5 Clearly, if skeletons are placed in the wrong age, sex (or both) categories, the resulting mortality profile will be flawed. Waldron's comment that the absence of young males in the 15–24-year-old age category may be explained by the very fact that young males may be misclassified as female.6 Waldron's reallocation of unaged or unsexed skeletons is equally problematic. Firstly, these skeletons should be reallocated proportionately, i.e. according to the known proportion of individuals in each age group, not equally between all adult age groups, since the resulting percentage totals for each group will be altered and the premise that adults of any age have an equal probability of dying is not a biologically valid assumption. Secondly, taphonomic research has shown that not all human skeletons preserve equally. For example, the bones of non-adults are smaller in size and more fragile, and the bones of older adults may have antemortem bone loss.7 These factors can lead to a biased mortality profile. As Waldron stated in his excellent book (p.11), ‘Bias is always inevitable in palaeoepidemiological populations … for a variety of reasons, the most obvious of which is that we have no control over their selection because of … intrinsic and extrinsic factors’.8 Controlling the biases is more difficult than actually coming to terms with the fact that they exist. On the basis of the evidence presented, there appears to be little difference between mortality profiles for the plague and the overlying mediaeval cemetery. Thus, the evidence presented is that plague cemeteries are not a more reliable indicator of a living population. However, the use of control groups for comparative purposes in palaeoepidemiology must be undertaken with caution. A control group has well known and understood attributes (variables) and can be used as a ‘known’ sample. Perhaps the plague cemetery group, in this case, is the control group (not the group to be tested), i.e. it is known to be one through inference from historical data. Recent work2 that considered the palaeodemography of catastrophic (14th century London plague and 19th century cholera) and attritional (later Mediaeval) cemeteries in later Mediaeval England also found no differences in the probability of dying, life expectancy and survivorship between the populations, or between the sexes. Work has also corroborated that death distributions from catastrophic events resemble the living population because these events strike with limited regard for age.9 As compelling as these studies are, the study of human skeletal remains as a means towards understanding a once living population must be undertaken. Waldron shows the potential and problems of looking at burials from a plague context and using them as as a model for the living population. Open in new tabDownload slide Open in new tabDownload slide References 1 Drancourt M, Abdoudharam G, Signoli M, Dutour O, Raoult D. Detection of 400 year old Yersinia pestis DNA in human dental pulp: an approach to the diagnosis of ancient septicemia. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1998 ; 19: 12637 –40. 2 Margerison B. A Comparison of the Palaeodemography of Catastrophic and Attritional Cemeteries. An Analysis of Human Skeletal Data from Two Mediaeval English Cemeteries, Historical Burial Records from a Nineteenth Century English Cemetery and Data from Two Bison Kill Sites from the USA. Bradford: Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Bradford, 1997. 3 Saunders SR. Subadult skeletons and growth related studies. In: Saunders SR, Katzenberg MA. (eds). Skeletal Biology of Past Peoples. Research Methods. Chichester: Wiley Liss, 1992, pp.1–20. 4 Molleson T, Cox M. The Spitalfields Project. Vol. 2: The Anthropology. The Middling Sort. York: Council for British Archaeology Research. Report 86, 1993. 5 Walker PL. Problems of preservation and sexism in sexing: some lessons from historical collections for palaeodemographers. In: Saunders SR, Herring A (eds). Grave Reflections. Portraying the Past through Cemetery Studies. Toronto: Canadian Scholars' Press Inc., 1995, pp.31–47. 6 Waldron HA. Are plague pits of particular use to palaeoepidemiologists? Int J Epidemiol 2001 ; 30: 104 –08. 7 Henderson J. Factors determining the state of preservation of human remains. In: Boddington A, Garland AN, Janaway, RC (eds). Death, Decay and Reconstruction. Approaches to Archaeology and Forensic Science. Manchester: University Press, 1987, pp.43–54. 8 Waldron T. Counting the Dead. The Epidemiology of Skeletal Populations. Chichester: Wiley, 1994. 9 Paine RR. If a population crashes in prehistory, and there is no paleodemographer there to hear it, does it make a sound? Am J Phys Anthropol 2000 ; 112: 181 –90. © International Epidemiological Association 2001 http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png International Journal of Epidemiology Oxford University Press

Commentary: Bones, bodies and representivity in the archaeological record

Download PDF
2 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/original-article-commentary-bones-bodies-and-representivity-in-the-2HdvY9q80c

References (10)

Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© International Epidemiological Association 2001
ISSN
0300-5771
eISSN
1464-3685
DOI
10.1093/ije/30.1.109
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

The study of human remains from archaeological contexts can potentially provide archaeologists with a window on how populations lived and died, what they may have eaten, whether they practised hunting and gathering or agriculture, how they coped with illness, whether they traded and if they were in conflict. However, inherent in the study of the past is its fragmentary nature, the biased samples that ‘represent’ the past, and the problems of interpretation of the remains. Palaeoepidemiological study faces all these limiting factors and more. Importantly, for instance, the plague does not affect the bones of the skeleton and therefore cannot be identified skeletally —only through biomolecular analysis can Yersinia pestis DNA be identified.1 Considering the mortality profile of a known plague cemetery population,2 however, can aid in assessing the impact of the plague on populations if biases not associated with the presence of the plague such as over-representation of males, females, or specific ages at death, are not present in the population. Waldron asserts that the plague struck populations indiscriminately and therefore one might expect to see a ‘true’ representation of the once living population represented by the mortality profile. Conversely, a population not suffering from the impact of the plague would show a different mortality profile. The difference, however, will only occur if the context (i.e. socioeconomic and environmental) from which the non-plague cemetery derives is different to that of the plague cemetery. To construct a mortality profile one firstly needs to determine the age and sex of each skeleton. This can be a difficult task. The sex of non-adult skeletons cannot be determined without biomolecular analysis,3 and adult skeletons are problematic to age because of different rates of ageing within and between the sexes.4 Research has shown that there is a tendency to underage older adults and overage younger adults,4 whilst older female skeletons appear masculine and younger male skeletons look feminine.5 Clearly, if skeletons are placed in the wrong age, sex (or both) categories, the resulting mortality profile will be flawed. Waldron's comment that the absence of young males in the 15–24-year-old age category may be explained by the very fact that young males may be misclassified as female.6 Waldron's reallocation of unaged or unsexed skeletons is equally problematic. Firstly, these skeletons should be reallocated proportionately, i.e. according to the known proportion of individuals in each age group, not equally between all adult age groups, since the resulting percentage totals for each group will be altered and the premise that adults of any age have an equal probability of dying is not a biologically valid assumption. Secondly, taphonomic research has shown that not all human skeletons preserve equally. For example, the bones of non-adults are smaller in size and more fragile, and the bones of older adults may have antemortem bone loss.7 These factors can lead to a biased mortality profile. As Waldron stated in his excellent book (p.11), ‘Bias is always inevitable in palaeoepidemiological populations … for a variety of reasons, the most obvious of which is that we have no control over their selection because of … intrinsic and extrinsic factors’.8 Controlling the biases is more difficult than actually coming to terms with the fact that they exist. On the basis of the evidence presented, there appears to be little difference between mortality profiles for the plague and the overlying mediaeval cemetery. Thus, the evidence presented is that plague cemeteries are not a more reliable indicator of a living population. However, the use of control groups for comparative purposes in palaeoepidemiology must be undertaken with caution. A control group has well known and understood attributes (variables) and can be used as a ‘known’ sample. Perhaps the plague cemetery group, in this case, is the control group (not the group to be tested), i.e. it is known to be one through inference from historical data. Recent work2 that considered the palaeodemography of catastrophic (14th century London plague and 19th century cholera) and attritional (later Mediaeval) cemeteries in later Mediaeval England also found no differences in the probability of dying, life expectancy and survivorship between the populations, or between the sexes. Work has also corroborated that death distributions from catastrophic events resemble the living population because these events strike with limited regard for age.9 As compelling as these studies are, the study of human skeletal remains as a means towards understanding a once living population must be undertaken. Waldron shows the potential and problems of looking at burials from a plague context and using them as as a model for the living population. Open in new tabDownload slide Open in new tabDownload slide References 1 Drancourt M, Abdoudharam G, Signoli M, Dutour O, Raoult D. Detection of 400 year old Yersinia pestis DNA in human dental pulp: an approach to the diagnosis of ancient septicemia. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1998 ; 19: 12637 –40. 2 Margerison B. A Comparison of the Palaeodemography of Catastrophic and Attritional Cemeteries. An Analysis of Human Skeletal Data from Two Mediaeval English Cemeteries, Historical Burial Records from a Nineteenth Century English Cemetery and Data from Two Bison Kill Sites from the USA. Bradford: Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Bradford, 1997. 3 Saunders SR. Subadult skeletons and growth related studies. In: Saunders SR, Katzenberg MA. (eds). Skeletal Biology of Past Peoples. Research Methods. Chichester: Wiley Liss, 1992, pp.1–20. 4 Molleson T, Cox M. The Spitalfields Project. Vol. 2: The Anthropology. The Middling Sort. York: Council for British Archaeology Research. Report 86, 1993. 5 Walker PL. Problems of preservation and sexism in sexing: some lessons from historical collections for palaeodemographers. In: Saunders SR, Herring A (eds). Grave Reflections. Portraying the Past through Cemetery Studies. Toronto: Canadian Scholars' Press Inc., 1995, pp.31–47. 6 Waldron HA. Are plague pits of particular use to palaeoepidemiologists? Int J Epidemiol 2001 ; 30: 104 –08. 7 Henderson J. Factors determining the state of preservation of human remains. In: Boddington A, Garland AN, Janaway, RC (eds). Death, Decay and Reconstruction. Approaches to Archaeology and Forensic Science. Manchester: University Press, 1987, pp.43–54. 8 Waldron T. Counting the Dead. The Epidemiology of Skeletal Populations. Chichester: Wiley, 1994. 9 Paine RR. If a population crashes in prehistory, and there is no paleodemographer there to hear it, does it make a sound? Am J Phys Anthropol 2000 ; 112: 181 –90. © International Epidemiological Association 2001

Journal

International Journal of Epidemiology – Oxford University Press

Published: Feb 1, 2001

There are no references for this article.