Akin to approaches encouraged by Verano (1997) in the Andes, and Ortner (2011, 2012) for general paleopathological studies, this article focuses on accurate descriptions and definitions of osteoarthritis, entheses, and long bone cross-sectional geometry. By evaluating these conditions as part of biological responses to abnormal skeletal changes and biomechanical stress, this research discusses each condition's pathogenesis. Further, this article emphasizes a "small data" approach to evaluating these conditions in ancient culturally and biologically related human populations, where the study samples must have good skeletal preservation, where estimates of age and sex need to be included as major factors, and where abnormalities need to be described and evaluated. This article also discusses global clinical and osteological research on ways scholars are currently trying to establish industry-wide methods to evaluate osteoarthritis, entheses, and long bone cross-sectional geometry. Recent studies have focused on rigorous evaluation of methodological techniques, recording protocols, and interand intra-observer error problems. Additionally, scholars have focused on physical intensity of movement using biomechanics, evaluated burials of known occupation, and used complex statistical methods to help interpret skeletal changes associated with these conditions. This article also narrows to focus on these conditions within thematic "small data" areas throughout the Andes. This research concludes with describing future directions to understand skeletal changes, such as more multidisciplinary studies between osteologists and pathologists, collaborations with living people to collect CT, x-rays, or computer-aided motion capture, and a stronger focus on how these conditions correlate with intense biomechanical changes in younger individuals. Andean lifeways in terms of power, labor, economic activities, and identity. Early research correlated OA, entheses, and CSG as indicators of past activities, or used them to reconstruct movements associated with things like canoe paddling or spear throwing (e.g., Hawkey and Merbs, 1995; Kennedy, 1989; Merbs, 1983). Jurmain et al. (1999; 2012) have critiqued these approaches as "activity-only myopia," or a "Holy Grail" quest, identifying problems and concerns in description and interpretation with these methods. This has led to a reassessment of OA, entheses, and CSG, and an interrogation of if activity reconstruction in archaeological samples is even possible. Recent research on OA, entheses, and CSG has reevaluated methodological techniques, statistical assessments, recording protocols, inter-and intra-observer error problems, movement and biomechanics, and pathological changes on burials of known occupation, with no one solution (