Osteobiographies: Multidisciplinary contributions to the study of human remains
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31048/1852.4826.v13.n3.31076Keywords:
Osteobiographies, Bioarchaeology, Argentina, Chile, Middle Holocene, Late HoloceneAbstract
Bioarchaeology has proven to be a discipline that provides valuable information about the lifestyles of human populations from the study of bone and dental remains, tissues that record the situations experienced. The bioarchaeological study provides unique evidence that contributes to the understanding of problems that are fundamental to the knowledge of the past such as work and subsistence, health and disease, diet and nutrition, sedentary lifestyle, the adoption of cultigens and the domestication of animals, inter-ethnic contact, social conflict and European colonization, among others. More recently, and hand in hand with Social Theory, bioarchaeology has expanded its scope to other aspects, for example, considering social relationships as part of the formation of the biological body (Sofaer, 2006). These new approaches formulated the need to consider the physical body as socially created (Lorber and Martin, 2011), being a real and symbolic vehicle of political and social identities (Knudson and Stojanowski, 2008).
In its origins, the term “osteobiography” was coined to refer to the compilation of all the information available from the analysis of a skeleton that makes it possible to narrate the life of an individual (Saul, 1972). Currently, osteobiography has established itself as a specific analysis framework within a humanistic bioarcheology, which promotes the study of “biography as a cultural narrative” based on human remains (Robb, 2002, p. 160). This perspective raises and responds to different types of research questions from those addressed by traditional quantitative bioarcheology, focused at the population level, both being independent and complementary analysis frameworks (Hosek and Robb, 2019, p. 2). This diversity of current perspectives has been called “the bioarchaeologies” of the 21st century (Buikstra and Beck, 2006) and they recognize its bases in social biology (Angel, 1946), the biocultural proposal (Blackely, 1977; Goodman and Leatherman, 1998) and the osteobiography of Frank Saul (1972).
Various proposals that consider individuals in their historical and cultural dimension allow us to think in a new way about the bioindicators that are registered to reconstruct the identities of the subjects from integrated perspectives. Examples of these are the theory of the three bodies -physical, social and political- (Scheper-Hugues and Lock, 1987) and the theory of life courses (Gilchrist, 2004). In this sense, the bioarcheology of individuals (Stodder and Palkovich, 2012) or of the personality (Boutin, 2011), stands as valid alternatives that allow not only to humanize the past, but also to address problems generally not considered in bioarchaeological studies. traditional traditions, such as gender and sex, age and life courses, human body and identity, social roles, disability, the concept of embodiment and even the post-mortem agency of human remains (Hosek and Robb, 2019). In this way, they contribute to the generation of multivocal readings about the past.
All these perspectives are inserted in the need to problematize bodies, an aspect to which both archeology and anthropology have contributed significantly. From different avenues of analysis, researchers have argued that bodies are at the same time biology and culture, overcoming that position that sees them as a natural and pre-social entity on which cultural meanings are imprinted (Knapp and Meskell, 1997; Ingold, 2000; Fowler, 2002; Hamilakis et al., 2002; Thomas, 2007).
This dossier brings together five of the seventeen works presented in the homonymous symposium developed within the framework of the XX National Congress of Argentine Archeology, from July 15 to 19, 2019 in the city of Córdoba, under the coordination of Mariana Fabra and Soledad Salega, and the report of Leticia Cortés.
The main objective of this symposium was to socialize and reflect on bioarchaeological research carried out from an osteobiographical perspective that recounted unique life stories from the study of human remains. This space made it possible to debate, based on specific case studies, the generation of knowledge about the lives of people, historically and culturally situated.
Downloads
References
Angel, J. L. (1946). Skeletal change in ancient Greece. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 4, 69–97.
Blakely, R. (1977). Biocultural adaptation in Prehistoric America. Southern Anthropological Society Proceedings, No. 11. Athens: The University of Georgia Press.
Boutin, A. T. (2011). Crafting a bioarchaeology of personhood: Osteobiographical narratives from Alalakh. En: A. Baadsgaard, A. T. Boutin, y J. E. Buikstra (Eds.), Breathing new life into the evidence of death: Contemporary approaches to bioarchaeology (pp. 109-133). Santa Fe, New Mexico: School for Advanced Research Press.
Buikstra, J., & L. Beck. (2006). Bioarchaeology. The contextual analysis of human remains. New York: Routledge.
Fowler, C. (2002). Body parts: personhood and materiality in the earlier Manx Neolithic. En: Hamilakis Y., Pluciennik, M. & Tarlow, S. (Eds.), Thinking through the body. Archaeologies of corporeality (pp. 47-69). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Gilchrist, R. (2004). Archaeology and the life course: A time and place for gender. En: L. Meskell & R.W. Preucel (Eds.), A companion to social archaeology (pp. 142-160). Oxford: Blackwell.
Goodman, A. H., & Leatherman, T. L. (1998). Building a new biocultural synthesis: Political-economic perspectives on human biology. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Hamilakis, Y., Pluciennik, M., & Tarlow, S. (Eds.). (2002). Thinking through the body. Archaeologies of corporeality. London: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Hosek, L. & Robb, J. (2019). Osteobiography: A platform for bioarchaeological research. Bioarchaeology International 3(1), 1–15. doi:10.5744/bi.2019.1005
Ingold, T. (2000). The perception of the environment. Essays in livelihood, dwelling and skill. London: Routledge.
Knapp, A. & Meskell, L. (1997). Bodies of evidence on prehistoric Cyprus. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 7(2), 183-204.
Knudson, K. J., & Stojanowski, C. M. (2008). New directions in bioarchaeology: Recent contributions to the study of human social identities. Journal of Archaeological Research, 16, 397-432.
Lorber, J., & Martin, P. Y. (2011). The socially constructed body: Insights from feminist theory. En P. Kvisto (Ed.), Illuminating social life: Classical and contemporary theory revisited (pp. 183–206). Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press.
Robb, J. (2002). Time and biography. En Y. Hamilakis, M. Pluciennik, & S. Tarlow (Eds.), Thinking through the body: Archaeologies of corporeality (pp. 145–163). London: YKluwer/Academic.
Saul, F. (1972). The human skeletal remains of Altar de Sacrificios: an osteobiographical analysis. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, 63, no. 2. Cambridge, MA: Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University.
Scheper Hughes, N. & Lock, M. M. (1987). The mindful body: a prolegomenon to future work in medical anthropology. Medical Anthropology Quarterly, New Series, 1(1), 6-41.
Soafer, J. R. (2006). The Body as Material Culture: a Theoretical Osteoarchaeology. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 17(3), 364-366. doi:10.1017/S0959774307000467
Stodder, A., & Palkovich, A. (2012). Osteobiography and bioarchaeology. En A. Stodder & A. Palkovich (Eds.) The bioarchaeology of individuals (pp. 1-8). Florida: University Press of Florida.
Thomas, J. (2007). Archaeology’s humanism and the materiality of the body. En T. Insoll (Ed.), The archaeology of identities (pp. 211-224). London: Routledge.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2020 Mariana Fabra, Soledad Salega, Leticia I. Cortés
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Those authors who have publications with this Journalaccept the following terms:
a. Authors will retain their copyrights and guarantee the journal the right of first publication of their work, which will be simultaneously subject to the Creative Commons Attribution License (Licencia de reconocimiento de Creative Commons) that allows third parties to share the work as long as its author and his first publication in this journal.
b. Authors may adopt other non-exclusive licensing agreements for the distribution of the version of the published work (eg, deposit it in an institutional electronic file or publish it in a monographic volume) provided that the initial publication in this journal is indicated.
c. Authors are allowed and recommended to disseminate their work on the Internet (eg in institutional telematic archives or on their website) before and during the submission process, which can lead to interesting exchanges and increase citations of the published work. (See The Effect of Open Access - El efecto del acceso abierto)