Biology Reference
In-Depth Information
multiple lenses through which material culture and, by extension, health stress indicators
may be evaluated. This includes agency theory (see Dobres and Robb, 2000; Dornan, 2002 )
as well as gender archaeology and feminist archaeology (see Gero and Conkey, 1991;
Hays-Gilpin, 2000; Wilkie and Hayes, 2006; Wylie, 2007 ).
Agency, Gender, and Osteobiography
The analytical paleopathology of the twenty-first century is increasingly reflecting the
vocabulary and theoretical issues of post-processual archaeology ( Buikstra and Scott,
2009; Baadsgaard et al., 2012 ). This includes gender and feminism ( Geller, 2008, 2009; Agar-
wal and Glencross, 2011 ) and conceptualization of the body (corporeality) ( Hamilakis et al.,
2002; Sofaer, 2006; Knudson and Stojanowski, 2008, 2009; Buikstra and Scott, 2009; Agarwal
and Glencross, 2011 ). Recent interpretive trends have broadened to consider cultural vari-
ables (e.g., disease equated with sin or punishment, pathology seen as transformative
blessing) for the prevalence and patterns of paleopathology (e.g., Little and Papadopoulos,
1998; Roberts, 2000; Waldron, 2007a; Duncan and Hofling, 2011; Marsteller et al., 2011;
Smith et al., 2011 ). Topics adopted from post-processualist perspectives include social iden-
tity, age-related changes in role or identity, the social meaning or context of personal life
history, and gender (i.e., social role). Social identity reflects cultural membership (ethnic
identity) and self-conceptualization ( Waldron, 2007a; Knudson and Stojanowski, 2008,
2009 ) and, to date, has been paleopathologically addressed in studies of deliberate cranial
modification (i.e., head binding) ( Blom, 2005; Duncan, 2009; Torres-Rouff, 2009 ). Changes
in social roles or identities may also occur over the lifespan of an individual. These may be
marked by events or rites-of-passage which may not be congruent with age-at-death
categories (e.g., Gilchrist, 2000; Glencross, 2011; Sofaer, 2011 ). In other words, the post-
processual perspective reminds the researcher that a biological child may be a social adult
(e.g., Lewis, 2007; Halcrow and Tayles, 2011; Mays and Eyers, 2011 ).
A broader role of the individual (osteobiography) is emerging, whether as a methodology
( Saul and Saul, 1989 ) or as a vehicle to address the contextual meaning of an individual's
particular life as a member of a particular culture who shaped and is shaped by it ( Robb,
2002 ). That is, the individual (or few individuals) need not be part of a sample to have an
explanatory or interpretive role (e.g., Saul and Saul, 1989; Robb, 2002; Rosado and Vernac-
chio-Wilson, 2006; Renschler, 2007; Stodder and Palkovich, 2012 ).
A fundamental bioarchaeological analytical tool is the biological sex of an individual. As
a research tool, it provides a control the same way comparisons by age, subsistence economy,
or temporal context are utilized. Although colloquially sex may be equated with gender, sex
(biology) in bioarchaeology is not the same as gender (role) and never has been (see Walker
and Cook, 1998 ). Biological sex may predicate on certain behaviors or abilities, but it carries
with it no social agenda or exclusive power to classify by social identity. However, sex can be
used to test for social role and sex-based health vulnerabilities in a given cultural context
(e.g., Grauer and Stuart-Macadam, 1998 ).
The interpretive frameworks a scholar adopts may vary, but the supportive pathological
data must be invariably accurately identified and quantified. This is particularly true if the
skeletal material is only temporarily available for study and the information collected
becomes the sole record. What follows is a practical guide to paleopathology and an intro-
duction to the analytical process.
Search WWH ::




Custom Search