2013
DOI: 10.1016/j.jchb.2013.02.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Degenerative joint diseases and enthesopathies in a Joseon Dynasty population from Korea

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2

Citation Types

0
16
0
2

Year Published

2015
2015
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(18 citation statements)
references
References 47 publications
0
16
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…The sites as shown in Figure 1 reportedly (Woo & Pak, 2013). They remained in a traditional agricultural society, and the general health among the Joseon people is presumed to be poorer than that of modern people given the relatively high preva- (Beom et al, 2014;Park, Woo, Jeong, & Cho, 2011).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The sites as shown in Figure 1 reportedly (Woo & Pak, 2013). They remained in a traditional agricultural society, and the general health among the Joseon people is presumed to be poorer than that of modern people given the relatively high preva- (Beom et al, 2014;Park, Woo, Jeong, & Cho, 2011).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The sites as shown in Figure 1 reportedly date back to the Joseon period, ranging from the late 14th to the late 19th century, based on the relative dating of burial types and grave goods (Central Institute of Cultural Heritage, 2009; Foundation of East‐Asia Cultural Properties Institute, 2011; Hangang Institute of Cultural Heritage, 2013, 2016, 2018, 2019; Institute of Defense Cultural Heritage, 2010; Korean Institute for Archaeology & Environment, 2013; Nuri Institute for Archaeology, 2018; The Korea Archaeology & Art History Research Institute, 2018). Joseon people lived during a transitional period (1392–1910 AD) bridging antiquity and the modern era (Woo & Pak, 2013). They remained in a traditional agricultural society, and the general health among the Joseon people is presumed to be poorer than that of modern people given the relatively high prevalence of stress indicators among the Joseon period skeletons (Beom et al, 2014; Park, Woo, Jeong, & Cho, 2011).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In bioarchaeological research, entheseal changes commonly are examined for their relationship to activity. While the value of these skeletal markers as indicators of activity remains debatable, results from such studies consistently show that they are significantly correlated with age in historic and prehistoric populations . This study explores whether entheseal changes in the femur and os coxa are correlated with age in a contemporary population and, if so, can be used (i) to generate age predictions and (ii) to narrow age estimates for older individuals.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Some researchers did not find any significant or very small sex differences in OA. Such results were obtained for Holocene foragers of Siberia's Cis‐Baikal region (Lieverse et al, ), Natufian hunter–gatherers and Neolithic farmers in the Levant (Eshed, Gopher, Galili, & Hershkovitz, ), for Tombos population (Nubia) (1550–1069 BC) (Schrader, ), for Joseon Dynasty collection from Korea (15th–20th century) (Woo & Pak, ), Archaic period (1000–500 BC) Ohio population (Woo & Sciulli, ), and for post‐medieval Dutch (Palmer et al, ). As seen above, it can be assumed that age correlations and sex differences in OA changes in skeletal populations do not always exist, are not clear enough, are not homogeneous and are different for different skeletal populations and joints.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 71%
“…However, nonsignificant age differences in OA have also been observed by Palmer, Hoogland, and Waters‐Rist () in the post‐medieval Dutch population. In studies by Woo and Pak () for Joseon Dynasty population from Korea (15th–20th century), and Schrader () for Tombos population (Nubia) of New Kingdom Period (1550–1069 BC) older individuals had greater OA changes, but the correlation was significant only for a few joints.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%