Biology Reference
In-Depth Information
and research on how frailty contributes to death risk might lead towards a solution for this
part of the paradox.
While several scholars have countered the arguments in the paradox (e.g.,
Goodman, 1993;
Cohen, 1994
),
Wood and Milner (1994)
conceded that while the model presented in the 1992
publication has pitfalls, the important point remains that models for making interpretations
about the living population based on the dead (skeletal) population are lacking. They also
stated (1994:635), “If a skeletal lesion has any relationship whatsoever to the risk of death
.
the skeletal population must be a biased sample for the living population” (emphasis in
original). Essentially, people die for a reason
d
even accidental deaths can differentially affect
certain individuals over others
d
and therefore the skeletal sample of those who have died
(assuming the sample accumulated over time) tells us little about those who
did not
die
(
Wood and Milner, 1994
).
While this is true, skeletal biologistswho study the past are obviously limited in terms of the
sample at their disposal. While a given skeletal series may be a snapshot in time of the
deceased population, one of the facts of life is that everyone dies, sooner or later. While unfor-
tunate for each individual, this gives us an opportunity to study health in the past
d
to observe
populations across time and space. Via improved demographic methods (see Konigsberg and
Frankenberg [Chapter 11], this volume) we can identify trends and patterns seen between and
even within populations. Several publications have examined the osteological paradox in
depth. For a review, see
Wright and Yoder (2003)
and refer to Smith (Chapter 7), this volume.
Bioarchaeology
Jane Buikstra was the first to use the term “bioarchaeology” in reference to the merging of
physical anthropological methods with archaeology (
Buikstra, 1977
). While the termwas first
used in the 1970s, the methods nevertheless have a deep historical root (
Buikstra et al., 2003
).
For example, researchers such as Hrdli
cka and Hooton were interested in the application of
physical anthropology to the interpretation of archaeological sites. For instance, Hrdli
cka
collected a large number of Native American skeletons to refute hypotheses regarding pre-
Pleistocene occupation of the Americas (
Armelagos and Van Gerven, 2003
). Further,
Hooton's analysis of skeletal remains from Pecos Pueblo, an archaeological site in New
Mexico, was one of the first, if not the first, to approach skeletal analysis using an epidemi-
ological and biocultural approach (
Armelagos and Van Gerven, 2003; Beck, 2006
). The subse-
quent publication, The Indians of Pecos Pueblo (
Hooton, 1930
) demonstrates that he critically
examined the archaeological context to ask temporal questions about population change
(
Beck, 2006
), part of the focus of bioarchaeology today.
Bioarchaeology helps to contextualize past populations and their individuals, by
answering questions about behavior, quality of life, lifestyle, gender, and politics, among
others (
Larsen, 1997, Buikstra, 2006a,b
). It also examines population history and biological
distance, two themes important for elucidating the human experience. It does this via several
main approaches, what
Buikstra (2006b)
calls the “bioarchaeologies.” These “bio-
archaeologies” were preceded historically by publications from scholars such as Wilton
Krogman and J. Lawrence Angel. Krogman's contribution illustrated the use of skeletal anal-
ysis to show that bones record life's data and Angel's contributions included contextualizing
questions about culture from biology (
Buikstra, 2006b
).
