Gendered division of labor in a Celtic community? A comparison of sex differences in entheseal changes and long bone shape and robusticity in thepre‐Romanpopulation of Verona (Italy, third–first centuryBC)

Abstract

Objectives: The presence of a gendered subdivision of labor has been bioarchaeologically investigated in various prehistoric and historical contexts. Little is known, however, about the type of differences in daily activities characterizing men and women among the Celtic communities of Italy. The focus of the present study is the analysis of differences in patterns of entheseal changes (ECs) and long bone shape and robusticity between sexes among the Cenomani Gauls of Seminario Vescovile (SV-Verona, Italy, third-first century BC). Materials and Methods: The sample includes 56 adult individuals (22 females and 34 males). Presence of ECs on nine bilateral postcranial attachment sites, and values of humeral and femoral shape and robusticity indices based on external measurements were compared between sexes by means of generalized linear models and Mann-Whitney tests. Results: Results show a lack of difference between sexes in long bone shape and robusticity, and a higher incidence of upper and, especially, lower limb ECs in males. Discussion: These results suggest the presence of sex-specific activities at SV mostly related to farming and differently influencing the considered variables. Also, this study suggests the relevance of a series of nonbiomechanical factors (developmental, hormonal, genetic, and methodological) when attempting biocultural reconstructions from osteoarchaeological samples. K E Y W O R D S celts, entheses, Iron Age, long bone indices, physical activity 1 | INTRODUCTION 1.1 | Theoretical and archaeological background A large number of bioarchaeological studies have investigated the differences in daily physical activities between sexes and gendered division of labor among past human societies (e.g., al-Oumaoui,

Quotidian lives on isolated bodies: Entheseal changes and cross‐sectional geometry among the aboriginal population of La Gomera (ca. 200–1500 AD, Canary Islands)

“…These physical changes have been also pointed out regarding the indigenous remains of Tenerife (Estévez‐González, 2005) and Gran Canaria (Santana‐Cabrera & Moreno‐Benítez, 2014). Nevertheless, our results do not fit a social behaviour where both sexes where involved in completely different tasks (Laffranchi et al, 2020). Conversely, this pattern could reflect the activities of an agropastoral society that required men and women to participate in a wide range of labours with habitual mobility in a rugged landscape.…”

“…However, the results in EC and CSG do not allow us to identify a pattern of unilateral activities since there were also high frequencies of enthesis related to activity of specific muscles of the left side. The data indicating biomechanical load exerted by the left limb may be interpreted as the result of the execution of constant bilateral practices, generally more numerous in prehistoric populations (Eshed, Gopher, Galili, & Hershkovitz, 2004; Laffranchi et al, 2020; Lieverse, Bazaliiskii, Goriunova, & Weber, 2009; Santana‐Cabrera, 2011). This bilateral pattern could be used in many complementary activities.…”

“…Due to the relatively low number of skeletal remains with estimated sex, we must be cautious with the interpretations, because the population representation has been limited by the lack of individualized skeletons. Among other contributions, EC have also allowed researchers to interpret the gendered division of labour in the communities of the past based on sex differences (Jiménez‐Brobeil, Al‐Oumaoui, & Esquivel, 2004; Laffranchi et al, 2020; Santana‐Cabrera et al, 2015; Sofaer, 2006; Weiss et al, 2012). We must consider the known hormonal different effect on resorption mechanisms according to sex (DeWitte, 2018; Peichl et al, 1998; Weiss et al, 2012) and that both adult groups are of similar ranges of age (Niinimäki & Baiges‐Sotos, 2013; Robb, 1998).…”

“…Several authors have also addressed the influence of postural evolution, climate, body mass and diet on these geometric properties (Agostini, Holt, & Relethford, 2018; González‐Reimers et al, 2014; Osipov, Pickard, Garcia‐Donas, Márquez‐Grant, & Kranioti, 2020; Pearson, 2015; Pomeroy, Cole, Macintosh, Wells, & Stock, 2018; Ruff et al, 2015). In recent years, some studies have combined EC with cross‐sectional geometry (CSG) to analyse their correlation with physical activity (Becker, 2020; Kubicka & Myszka, 2020; Laffranchi, Charisi, Jiménez‐Brobeil, & Milella, 2020; Michopoulou, Nikita, & Valakos, 2015; Nikita, Xanthopoulou, Bertsatos, Chovalopoulou, & Hafez, 2019; Sparacello et al, 2020).…”

What is normal bone health? A bioarchaeological perspective on meaningful measures and interpretations of bone strength, loss, and aging

“…While these evolutionary studies clearly demonstrate a general decrease or changes in skeletal robusticity over time correlated with subsistence mobility or technological innovation, without sufficient sample sizes and wider range of age distributions, they are not able to detect or make meaningful interpretations of age‐ or sex‐related bone loss. However, recent comparative studies of cortical long bone robusticity in a variety of modern populations have found varying patterns of sexual dimorphism that have been suggested to reflect differences in gendered activities and behavior (Laffranchi et al, 2020; Saers et al, 2017; Temple et al, 2021; Zelazny et al, 2021). While these studies do not consider age‐related changes and/or do not have sufficient sample sizes to do so, they do underscore the plasticity of bone morphology with behavior/lifestyle and do not support the “mismatch” hypothesis that females in modern human populations are predestined to have less robust bones or bone fragility.…”