Bioarchaeology in perspective: From classifications of the dead to conditions of the living

Abstract

At no other time in either the history of physical anthropology or its flagship journal, the American Journal of Physical Anthropology, has there been such strong interest in the central role that human remains from archaeological settings play in developing an understanding of the remarkably dynamic last 10,000 years of the history, evolution, and contextual circumstances surrounding the human condition. Over the course of my association with bioarchaeology, I have watched the expanding interest in the study of the remains of post-Pleistocene humans as expressed in the number of articles in the pages of the AJPA, increasing class enrollments and student interest generally, number of faculty positions, summer field schools around the globe, graduate student interest and recruiting, volume of presentations at the annual meetings of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, growth in other related professional societies (e.g., Paleopathology Association, Dental Anthropology Association, British Association for Biological Anthropology and Osteoarchaeology), new peerreviewed journals, book series, and presence in electronic news media. I knew that bones and teeth were amazingly interesting when I took my first osteology course taught by William Bass in my freshman year at Kansas State University, but I had no idea of the broad extent of the fund of data archaeological human skeletons provide for addressing hypotheses and questions about the human past, especially as these questions pertain to environment viewed broadly-diet, nutrition, climate, social and cultural circumstances, health, lifestyle, activity, biological relatedness, and social, cultural, and population dynamics. As bioarchaeology has shown, a person's skeleton contains their cumulative record of lived experiences and conditions, and skeletons from community cemeteries provide a record over many generations. Moreover, the individual and community genetic history gives us a baseline for addressing questions of how population history-from marriage patterns to large scale mobility-has shaped human biology through time and space.

A bioarchaeological analysis of skeletal remains from Van Zyl’s farm, Clarens, Free State, South Africa

“…One of the goals of bioarchaeology is to interpret remains within their associated archaeological context, taking into consideration the influences of culture and the ability of societies to adapt to their environments (Zuckerman & Armelagos 2011;Larsen 2018). Unfortunately, the way in which many sites and skeletons were excavated in the past has led to the irretrievable loss of much information with very limited means to place them into a proper context.…”

The elusive parasite: comparing macroscopic, immunological, and genomic approaches to identifying malaria in human skeletal remains from Sayala, Egypt (third to sixth centuries AD)

“…Physiological stress during life, through disease, trauma, dietary deficiencies, and a multitude of cultural, environmental, and economic causes, can be reflected on the human skeleton in the form of observable morphological changes (Agarwal 2016 ; Larsen 2018 ; Ortner 2003 ). Malaria in past populations has typically been interpreted through correlating skeletal indicators of chronic anaemia as a proxy, along with ecological and historical data (i.e.…”

Tourism in the Time of Coronavirus. Fruition of the “Minor Heritage” through the Development of Bioarchaeological Sites—A Proposal

“…In addition, other sites-Old Cemetery of Viggiù, San Michele di Trino, the Crypt of the Church of Santa Maria Maggiore in Vercelli and the Crypt of the Church of the Annunciation of Valenza-are included in the future bioarchaeological investigations. All these sites are united by the theme of bioarchaeological research [22,23] and are therefore subjected to the reconstruction of the religious funerary ritual and the biological history of the population and to archaeological restorations aiming for the enhancement of the site. In these cases, we promote the musealization of bioarchaeological sites in their entirety-that is, of the ancient church, which can also include the display of human and archaeological finds recovered during the excavation-and the external cemetery area through the exposure of tombs.…”