Stories from the Skeleton

Behavioral Reconstruction in Human Osteology

Robert Jurmain

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• Print ISBN: 9789057005411
• eBook ISBN: 9781135851958
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Biological Sciences
• Subtopic: Environmental Science
• Index: Biological Sciences

This volume raises central theoretical issues regarding behavioural reconstruction in human osteological research. Because behavioural reconstructions have become increasingly common, especially within paleopathology, it is time to review the scientific basis for such an approach. For example, osteological scenarios seeking to link the onset of such skeletal conditions as osteoarthritis, dental disease, and trauma with specific behaviours in past populations are critically examined. Questions are also raised as to the scientific rigor of such hypotheses, the ethnohistorical (or other) evidence used to support them and, ultimately, the soundness of such claims. In addition, commentary is included that broadens the scope to include anthropology and explains the utility (and limitations) of behavioural reconstructions in paleoanthropology and the biocultural perspective as it is used in contemporary anthropology.

Chapter 1

Introduction: Of Science and Stories

“So What?”

Anonymous

BACKGROUND

Every researcher labors with some expectation, one could even say illusion, that their results will mean something. Thus, it came as somewhat of a rude awakening when, a few years ago, I received the query of “so what” from a reviewer of an article on osteoarthritis I had submitted for publication. The article was eventually published, but this inquiry did prompt an immediate rejoinder and considerable further reflection. In fact, in many ways, this reflection has led directly to this book.

My own human skeletal research has focused on behavioral reconstructions, especially relating to my earlier work on osteoarthritis as well as more recent investigations of traumatic involvement. It is, however, my experience with osteoarthritis research which has, in recent years, most stimulated a reappraisal of the nature of behavioral reconstruction as it is practiced by human osteologists.

Why behavioral inferences are so commonly and so eagerly pursued in skeletal analysis is not difficult to fathom. Popular conceptions of what skeletal biologists ostensibly can learn from osteological remains usually center on such behavioral inferences. The wide popularity (and, also, misunderstanding) of forensic anthropological investigation has further led to similar unrealistic expectations of what inferences osteologists can reasonably make. Moreover, drawing behavioral inferences from “dry” skeletal materials, obviously, is fascinating, both to scientist and to the general public. Also shared with forensic colleagues, there is the challenge of detective-like deduction as well as the motivation to “flesh-out” the individuals recovered from archaeological contexts, somehow to make them “real people.” Thus, the intellectual compensations of pursuing behavioral reconstructions are considerable, but so too are the perils.

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES IN SKELETAL/BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH

In addition, it could be argued that the foundation of anthropology in the United States has further fostered a behaviorally oriented approach in osteology, and more generally, in physical anthropology. As usually a minority partner in a three-field (or four-field) general anthropology, physical anthropologists have been much encouraged to link osteological evidence with that obtained by our colleagues, be they archaeologists or cultural anthropologists. This is part of what has been termed the “biocultural perspective.” Washburn succinctly stated the motivation for such an orientation: “If we would understand the process of human evolution, we need a modern dynamic biology and a deep appreciation of the history and functioning of culture. It is this necessity which gives all anthropology unity as a science” (1962: 13).

All this is well and good, and at a general level makes perfectly good sense. Ultimately, as anthropologists we wish to understand the human experience, as it has been shaped by human adaptation. Clearly, one cannot understand the biology of any organism without also understanding the environments to which it has adapted. Humans, and earlier hominids as well, obviously have adapted to a largely cultural environment. Yet, if one is to accept evidence of stone tools as a signature of early cultural behavior, then such cultural processes have been at work for at least 2.5 million years. Thus, to say that Homo sapiens shows biocultural adaptations is analogous to saying fish reflect aquatic adaptations. The statements are, of course, accurate, just not very informative.

What clearly is needed is specificity. That is, we wish to know what environmental factors influence human biology and how. These questions are, however, not as easy to address as are the broad glittering generalities. Over the last few decades, much of the paleoanthro-pological research of earlier hominids has attempted to wrestle with these issues, and so too with human osteological investigation of more recent populations.

A significant portion of human osteological research has focused on the reconstruction of certain behavioral attributes of earlier populations. Some of this research has concerned dental variation, especially as it relates to dietary reconstruction. Similarly, much effort has been devoted to the investigation of chemical constituents of human bone, also aimed ultimately at dietary inference. This research, however, is not the focus here. Instead, this book reviews those techniques aimed at inferring activity from skeletal remains.

Assessing Activity

There is a fairly long history of such attempts by skeletal biologists, particularly by those who have come to be identified as paleopathologists. For example, in an early analysis of Nubian remains, Elliot Smith and Wood Jones (1910) drew behavioral inferences both from the patterning of osteoarthritic lesions as well as those resulting from trauma. In fact, the quality of documentation, especially as relating to traumatic involvement (Wood Jones, 1910), is still an excellent illustration of the necessary paleoepidemiological methodologies required in this type of research. Moreover, because these data remain so potentially informative, they have recently been reworked by Berger and Trinkaus (1995), and thus this research continues to provide useful data and to stimulate further investigation (see Chapter 6).

Probably the most central figure in the development of an explicit behaviorally oriented osteological perspective in the U.S. was J. Lawrence Angel. Angel’s innovative perspectives have fundamentally influenced anthropological interpretations of osteoarthritis (1966; 1971); trauma (1976); enthesial reactions (1964; Angel et al., 1987; Kelley and Angel, 1987); parturition scars (1969; 1971; Angel et al., 1987), and Schmorl’s nodes (1971; Angel et al., 1987). In fact, all of these topics are discussed in this book. Moreover, Angel’s perspectives and enthusiasm provided a stimulus to many other researchers. Working with his colleague at the Smithsonian Institution, T. Dale Stewart, they initiated a remarkable series of skeletal studies and, in the process, launched an array of innovative techniques. This research was to have immediate derivative effects, for example, D.J. Ortner’s investigation of osteoarthritis (1968). In fact, through the suggestion and direction of Don Ortner, and also influenced by Angel and Stewart at the Smithsonian, I began my own research on osteoarthritis.

As the balance of this book details, many others have followed in the footsteps of Angel, Stewart, and Ortner. Moreover, in a corresponding fashion, the influence of Calvin Wells (1963; 1964; 1965) in the U.K. also initiated a great interest in behaviorally oriented research, especially as concerning osteoarthritis.

CURRENT PERSPECTIVES

Both in the U.S. and the U.K. this interest has yet to wane, although it has recently been somewhat redirected. For example, at the 1997 American Association of Physical Anthropologists annual meeting numerous papers addressed a variety of skeletal “markers” of behavior/activity. Four of these contributions concerned trauma, all dealing with craniofacial injury and interpretations of interpersonal aggression. A fifth paper made a similar conclusion regarding cannibalism. Three papers dealt with activity inferences from bone geometric properties, one addressing nonhuman primates and another concerning behavioral reconstruction from late Paleolithic/Mesolithic contexts. Likewise, one contribution concerned Schmorl’s nodes, two addressed skeletal asymmetries/handedness, one investigated squatting facets, and two others attempted to use osteoarthritic involvement to infer behavior. Indeed, with just two papers dealing specifically with osteoarthritis, there is an apparent trend away from using this once-popular approach as a grounds for behavioral inference (although a few other papers also incorporated degenerative lesions as part of a more “holistic” approach to such reconstructions).

The most obvious new emphasis for inferring activity clearly involves the use of “musculoskeletal markers,” or, more specifically, enthesial reactions. In this recent national meeting, 11 papers focused on such evidence and did so specifically in an attempt to draw behavioral inferences, although one of these (Bridges, 1997), did report negative results. Much of this recent interest in enthesial reactions at the physical anthropology meeting was stimulated by a special symposium on this topic which included nine of these contributions.

Beyond the confines of professional conferences, it is quite apparent that such endeavors still attract much interest among osteologists. Given both the general public’s eagerness to hear such stories as well as the biocultural emphasis of American anthropology (noted above), professional journals also commonly encourage such interpretations. A clear impression one gets from such an orientation is that evidence of osteoarthritis (and many other skeletal manifestations) is interesting only in so far as it helps reconstruct activity patterns in past groups. Unquestionably, my own earlier research helped fuel this unrealistic expectation. Moreover, it is an overly-limiting view, failing as it does to recognize the manifold other ways that skeletal data can contribute to understanding the biology of osteoarthritis and other significant conditions.

Despite the current fascination with enthesopathies, over the last two decades osteoarthritis has been the condition most frequently used by osteologists to infer behavior. For example, in Kennedy’s eclectic review of “skeletal markers of occupational stress” (1989), the majority of characteristics relate to some form of joint or peri-articular involvement. Likewise, in Merbs’ landmark publication on “activity-induced pathology” (1983) most of the emphasis also was placed on osteoarthritic patterning and its utility in reconstructing activity from skeletal remains.

Following considerable enthusiasm during the 1970s and 1980s, some criticisms have been voiced over the past few years (e.g., Bridges, 1992; 1993; Jurmain, 1990a; 1991b). Perhaps, these critiques have had a inhibiting effect on certain aspects of research relating to osteoarthritis as a skeletal marker of activity. Other researchers are, understandably, not as convinced and continue to evaluate osteoarthritis for this purpose, but they usually do so with more caution than many of us exercised in past years! Certainly, these differing perspectives stimulated some lively and informative discourse in 1996 at a special symposium (as part of the Paleopathology Association annual meeting).

In fact, it would be a detriment for osteologists to turn away from investigation of osteoarthritis simply because its skeletal manifestations do not usually relate directly to an unambiguous behavioral etiology. There is an amazingly deep and rich clinical literature on osteoarthritis, which is the primary reason we are now more aware of its inherently complex etiopathogenesis.

This present review focuses somewhat more on osteoarthritis, both in terms of its clinical manifestations and osteological interpretations, than on those other skeletal conditions recently utilized to infer activity patterns. The rationale for this emphasis relates partly to my own experience, but is also linked to other considerations as well:

• Osteoarthritis is among the most common pathological condition found in human skeletal remains.

• As mentioned above, osteologists, to date, have used osteoarthritis more than other behavioral markers.

• The clinical literature is more detailed than for any other similar skeletally manifested condition, and a host of studies have dealt specifically with issues pertaining directly to osteological/behavioral interpretations.

• Osteoarthritis can then serve as a useful model for other emerging, and less well-tested, perspectives.

I would argue that osteological studies have contributed to a greater understanding of osteoarthritis, providing a complementary perspective to that of clinical investigations. Indeed, as will be emphasized, the greatest potential for advances in understanding derive from collaborative research efforts, in which osteological data supplement those obtained from living subjects. This is a point well discussed by others (e.g., Buikstra and Cook, 1980) and has also been the central focus of the Paleopathology Association since its founding in 1973.

ORGANIZATION OF BOOK

Recognizing that osteologists have more consistently utilized osteoarthritis than other skeletal conditions to draw behavioral inferences, the next three chapters focus on osteoarthritis. Chapter 2 reviews clinical and osteological perspectives particularly relating to various hypotheses concerning the etiopathogenesis of the disease. In a sense, this chapter attempts to view these complex clinical data through the eyes of a skeletal biologist; the resulting approach thus emphasizes pathological processes affecting bone.

Chapter 3 reviews the occupational and sports literature on osteoarthritis. These data are clearly central to anthropologists, since they represent a direct clinical analogy to the types of activity-related inferences proposed by osteologists. Chapter 4 completes the discussion of osteoarthritis with a review specifically of anthropological perspectives. The focus here is on data derived from skeletal research, and the more explicit emphasis concerns how osteologists have utilized osteoarthritis patterning to reconstruct behavioral aspects of ancient societies.

In Chapter 5 the orientation shifts to a consideration of a range of other proposed osteological “markers” of activity. While a variety of skeletal manifestations including Schmorl’s nodes, parturition scars, stress fractures (including spondylolysis), and auditory exostoses are discussed, the primary focus is on enthesopathies. As noted above, contemporary osteological research is emphasizing such enthesial reactions, and a review of this approach and its theoretical foundations thus seems prudent.

Chapter 6 addresses yet another commonly found skeletal condition, namely trauma. Behavioral interpretations of traumatic lesions have enjoyed a long history in anthropological research, and the osteological literature (as well as supporting clinical data) are reviewed. In particular, various proposals concerning the influence of interpersonal aggression affecting craniofacial involvement as well as “parry” fractures of the forearm are critically evaluated.

Probably the newest and potentially most innovative approach relating to behavioral reconstruction based upon skeletal material concerns analysis of bone geometry. Thus, Chapter 7 focuses on analysis of bone geometry, again emphasizing both theoretical bases and practical utility in osteological investigations.

Chapter 8 concludes the book with a synthesis of the varied perspectives presented in prior chapters. Moreover, this final chapter suggests how future methodological approaches can be refocused to avoid various problems inherent in current research.

OSTEOLOGY AS SCIENCE

Without some direct link between osteological indicators and well-documented morbid changes, skeletal biologists can only hypothesize in a theoretical vacuum. Relating bone changes only to presumed behavioral causation, and then assuming these very same bone “markers” corroborate said behavior, is obviously a circular piece of reasoning. Since osteologists usually lack any direct (and independent) evidence of behavioral attributes of earlier societies, they have occasionally sought other sources for such details. Most typically, this type of information has been extracted from ethnohistorical records. However, it should readily be apparent that this often-haphazard form of documentation is almost always inadequate to the task, as it lacks both the necessary precision and specificity. What osteologists then do (as exemplified by my own earlier assertions regarding Inuit osteoarthritis) is to selectively glean those bits from the ethnographic record that serve to “fit” a particular hypothesis. Such reasoning, however, is only slightly less circular than imaginative scenarios created solely from the skeletal evidence.

Another parallel line of evidence sometimes utilized for more recent archaeological contexts comes from historical accounts; unfortunately, these also are usually too imprecise to offer much in the way of rigorous insight. What such information clearly cannot usually do is provide an adequate means of independently testing the influence of behavior on skeletal response. For some recent historic contexts, there are, however, a few notable exceptions in which the quality of documentation has allowed a means of testing certain skeletal-behavioral relationships. In particular, the Spitalfields (Waldron and Cox, 1989) and the Mary Rose (Stirland, 1991; 1997) samples meet this standard.

Whatever their source of potential corroboratory evidence used to substantiate behavioral reconstructions, osteologists must always ask how accurate are these sources? Do they provide an independent test (from that of the skeletal material) ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Halftitle
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Introduction to the Series
• Preface
• Acknowledgments
• 1. Introduction: Of Science and Stories
• 2. Osteoarthritis: Clinical and Osteological Approaches
• 3. Osteoarthritis and Activity: Occupational and Sports Studies
• 4. Osteoarthritis: Anthropological Interpretations
• 5. Enthesopathies and Other Osteological Indicators of Activity
• 6. Trauma
• 7. Studies of Bone Geometry: The Shape of Things to Come?
• 8. Conclusion: Defining the Limits of Interpretation
• Appendix
• Bibliography
• Index