BONE STUDY IN ANTHROPOLOGY AND ARCHAEOLOGY
One of the great claims of men to transcend death. Bridging the gap and full successes, human osteology enables us to steal some life to death through one of its most representative images: the skeletons.
One of the great claims of men to transcend death. Bridging the gap and full successes, human osteology enables us to steal some life to death through one of its most representative images: the skeletons.
a fact of our biological reality is that our bodies beyond our existence. I mean obviously mummies and skeletons that are the last vestiges of our corporations.
The study of the bones within anthropology has long-standing interest, currently being easily identifiable specialized areas within the field osteological such as paleopathology, dental anthropology and the reconstruction of diets from stable isotopes, among many others. It is significant interest that continue to attract the skeletons in the specialized field. In the past five decades the number of jobs on osteology have held a privileged place in the official journal of the American Association of Physical Anthropology (Lovejoy et al 1982:336).
Beyond the validity and implications of technical and methodological choices that this implies, it is also true that the osteology has evolved in their internal approaches. This development also allows us to draw links with other anthropological areas also address these corporeal remains embedded within the multipurpose concept of burial.
osteology was certainly a fertile area descriptions in the nineteenth century with the burgeoning interest of Paul Broca and his special attention to the craniometric. The measures were transformed into conclusive evidence that validated deterministic anthropology. It is a time rich in typologies and segregatorio implacable character.
The osteology late last century and the beginning of this century, spends much of its efforts in a debugging, consensus and detailed osteometric techniques. It was not until the middle of this century that physical anthropology rethinking the nature of their efforts.
This historical development within the physical anthropology find similarity in archeology. Saving disciplinary interests, both disciplines face into his speech to new approaches to governing.
The recognition of these new stages, "New Archaeology" and "new physical anthropology" are not far away. By archeology, returning to Caldwell (1959), renews to overturn the disciplinary interest in ecology and settlement patterns as evidence in the study of cultural processes and neglects attention to the amount of recovered artifacts (Trigger, 1989:294). Something similar had occurred in the area antropofísico to Washburn (1953), in this discipline would have abandoned the intention to insist on merely qualifying interest explaining further reflection on biological phenomena in man.
In the early 50's the osteology receive a severe setback in one of his most characteristic topics and longstanding racial differentiation. New pieces in the assessment of biological variability try to discredit the achievements of the osteology.
to Boyd (1950) had four inconsistencies osteology:
(a) the difficulty in determining the skeletal morphology of the living.
(b) rapid skeletal adaptation to the environment,
(c) the polygenic nature of skeletal features, and
(d) the fact that the measures were not designed osteometric logically (Armelagos et.al.1982: 310 .)
This premature obituary supported by the use of blood markers which would be considered as differentiating race valid for several decades, but Boyd's criticism about the scope of the osteology lay essentially on methodological aspects of conceptual elements. The overall goals of the proposal did not stop a recurring line in the field typological.
other hand is a reality for many osteologists success validates much descriptive explanatory efforts. Not always easy to get rid of old disciplinary shadows and may even point out that these approaches not only relate to issues inherent to the biology of the skeleton but also other topics detached from practice antropofísica related to archeology such as systematic practice mortuary or bone deformities.
In this sense we can state that many osteological classifications grouped lengths or indices: dolichocephaly-mesocefalia-brachycephaly (head), platolenia-eurolenia (ulna), platimería-eurimería-estenomería (femur), placticnemia-mesocnemia-euricnemia (tibia ), among others. In turn, the osteological deformities are not poor in nomenclature: tabular erect, tabular oblique or remove, by following one of the classification systems in the skull. Or in the systematic burial according to body position, seated, supine lateral and more .. In any case it is clear that use these descriptions do not explain.
Once alerted the osteology of the narrative labyrinths, the sequel to the beginning of the century, were developed several approaches on how to address information of the skeletons. The first of these approaches starts from archeology. His interest focuses on the social value of mortuary practices opening, from an anthropological perspective of Archaeology, an "archeology of death." Although there is no particular interest in how to integrate information antropofísica beyond essential osteological data, this is an approach developer based on approaches such as Binford, Saxe and Brown.
They seek to establish basic general guidelines which can integrate information from a mortuary contexts anthropological discourse.
For example, Saxe, as the social person is determined by the characteristics of each social system, it is understood that the analysis of a social group of people (the study of a necropolis in the case of archeology) would an approach to the organization of that society. Saxe presents a type of analysis allows us to decipher: a) how social people are represented differently in the areas of deposition, and b) how different social structures are represented differently between different areas of deposition (Lull and Picazo, 1989:10)
As a result of this in the mid- 70's major proposals come as Lane et al (1972) and Tainter (1976). In these the funeral context antropofísica information are gradually forming an explanatory unit. For example Lane, proposes that to the extent that any feature of social organization save correspondence with the reference biological kinship system, it may be elucidated from osteological data (Lane, 1972).
Shortly after the 80's' are consolidating some of these approaches. Synthesis important as the Humphreys and King (1982) and O'Shea (1984) arranged a little progress so far achieved. On the other hand, is also in this decade that are enriching biosocial approach 'shared discourses. Broader interests of paleopathology and paleodemography generate more committed and from trails antropofísicos own disciplinary discourses perhaps more legitimate than some later identified within the bioarchaeology.
turn begin to develop Major revisions of methodologies and techniques and revalued osteological accusing the contributions and achievements of the reconstruction of life through the skeletons of new synthesis and Krogman and Iscan (1986) or the Iscan and Kennedy (1989) are updated osteology already announced one for the future essentially important innovations from the field Microanalysis.
A more consistent with the reconstruction of life through the skeletons is observable from the osteobiografías (Saul and Saul, 1989). Here the focus is organized essentially from big questions such as "who they were? How were they? Whence were?, thus forms a large figure that does not necessarily try to meet any particular premise.
While much of the construction of this assignment has a disciplinary history essentially guided by the American disciplinary development is important to note significant absences in the discourse on the lines developed in the old continent. In any case it seems that the desire for consensus have been ignored. Significant absences in the discourse of the archeology of death are detectable by not considering French authors such as Thomas or Aries who may well have extended this vision anthropological and archaeological over death.
Within these absences and failures can be identified in England but approaches which take up proposals by U.S. authors and Buikstra and Cook, 1980 (Bush and Zvelebil 1991). These approaches fall into two senses) access to biological conditions of human populations and their implications for biological and cultural reproduction of society and b) consider the selective effects of the culture of the study population and survival. In this approach archaeological interests are diluted to insist a bit more presence to questions about biological adaptation order of populations.
be identified in this brief review some of the approaches that have been shaping the terms of the skeletons is clear that other voices have not been touched. It is also true that this small opening chords lacks its own history of development of this field in Peru. In any case this is not a story away, recent pulse (Benson 1973, Donnan and Mackey 1978; Dillehay 1991, Verano and Ubelaker 1992; Guillén 1994; Millions Lemlij 1996;) are shaped much of contemporary history which we will increase. As I mentioned on the front lines, the bones have long life, just to make them speak their stay will have been pointless.
By: Mario Millions Figueroa - Physical Anthropologist
