Archive | Anthropologie de terrain RSS feed for this section

Conference Review: Day of the Dead Conference at Queen’s University Belfast, Northern Ireland, 17th-19th October 2014

31 Jul

As highlighted in an earlier blog post (alright, this post is quite late!) on this site Queen’s University Belfast (QUB), in Northern Ireland, recently played organizer and host to the Day of the Dead: Recent Research in Human Osteoarchaeology conference on the 17th to the 19th October 2014.  Yours truly went along on a propeller plane departing from Newcastle across the Irish Sea to Belfast to what turned out to be one of the best conferences that I have thus far had the pleasure of attending.  It was a conference that aptly and ably mixed funerary archaeology with human osteoarchaeology into a delicious few days that demonstrated the strength and wealth of ongoing research.  Of particular interest was the current human osteoarchaeological research on-going in Ireland itself, but we’ll come back to that shortly.  This brief post will cover a few of the research highlights of the event itself, and I hope it is a conference that will be repeated in the not-too-distant future.

QUB

The 19th century Lanyon building, at the centre of the Queen’s University Belfast campus in the south of the city, a fine host building for the conference. Home to some more than 17,000 students and 3500 staff, the university and it’s School of Archaeology, Geography and Palaeoecology boasts the facilities of a radiocarbon laboratory with AMS facilities. Photograph credit: QUB.

Spearheaded by Catriona McKenzie and her able assistants (the fantastic Deirdre Drain, Jeanna Loyer, and Roisin O’Reilly) from the Geography, Archaeology and Palaeoecology department (GAP) at Queen’s University Belfast, the Day of the Dead 3-day conference attracted delegates from around Ireland, Europe, and the wider world to present poster and podium papers on a smorgasbord of bioarchaeological topics.

Archaeothanatology Workshop

The conference kicked off with a workshop on the archaeothanatology methodology on the first day, which was spearheaded by Stéphane Rottier, Christopher Knüsel and Jeanna Loyer.  Archaeothanatology, or the similar anthropologie de terrain, is a method of recording the in-situ position of the body in the grave as proposed by the French archaeologist and anthropologist Henri Duday.  Unfortunately I did not get to attend the workshop itself as I arrived in the city mid-way through the first day, whilst the workshop itself was in mid-session.  However, I heard from friends that did manage to attend it that much was learnt regarding the importance of understanding the context of the body in-situ.  Of particular importance are the differences between coffin and non-coffin burials, where the position and rotational axis of certain skeletal elements, such as the humerus, radius and ulna, can indicate funerary and post-burial taphonomic body positions.

I managed to have a quick word with Chris Knüsel, who helps to advocate the use of the methodology, and he gave me a quick break down of what the methodology hopes to achieve. Archaeothanatology, Chris stated, ‘links bioarchaeology with funerary archaeology in a way that has never previously been considered.  It has the potential to distinguish natural phenomena from human agency and to reveal behavioural details of much more variable patterning of human remains than anticipated from burial types.  The methodology does require sound field recording of the archaeological and bioarchaeological contexts however for the full implementation and usefulness of the methodology to become apparent.

For further information and a good introduction to archaeothanatology, whose majority of publications have been written in French, I highly recommend Bradley’s 2010 open access article ‘Les Tomes Belle: The Use of ‘Anthropologie de Terrain in Prehistoric Archaeology‘, published in the University of York’s student journal The Post Hole.  I also recommend Katy Emery Meyer’s Bones Don’t Lie blog article on the inference of perishable grave goods in a prehistoric Bronze Age and Iron Age cemeteries in Ban Lum Khao and Ban Non Wat, Thailand, respectively, on Harris & Tayles 2012 research using archaeothanatology.  For a recent look at how archaothanatology, when used in conjunction with taphonomy, scanning electron microscopy, histological analysis, and Micro-CT scanning, is unraveling social practices in prehistory I highly recommend reading Smith’s et al. 2016 (paywalled) article on the British evidence for mummification and retention of the dead around a Chalcolithic and Bronze Age monument at Cranborne Chase, Dorset.

It should also be stated here that anthropologie de terrain underpins archaeothanatology, however there is some confusion on my part as to whether the methodologies are analogous due to translation intricacies or whether archaeothanatology is the natural progression of anthropologie de terrain.

Conference Sessions & Related Papers

The papers were presented over 8 sessions over the weekend of the 18th and 19th October, and dealt with a number of different themes relating to human osteoarchaeology in general.  I won’t go into detail regarding the papers presented but I will pick out a presentation or two to indicate the range of the topics.  I have to say I was quite impressed at the standard of the research presented and I really enjoyed the atmosphere of the conference as a whole.

day of the dead

The really rather lovely logo for the Day of the Dead  conference. Image credit: QUB.

It was also a real credit to the organizers of the conference that such a wide number of European and international countries were represented.  Of course one of the best things for any conference attendee who has to pay their own fees is the realization that a conference that is affordable is also filled with some of the best researchers in the field.  But anyway, enough of my praise and let me introduce a talk or two…

Osteoarchaeology in Ireland

After a welcome talk by Catriona McKenzie and Eileen Murphy the first session got underway and focused on the topic at hand within Ireland.  The chronological period covered here largely focused on the medieval and post-medieval history of Ireland, but Catriona McKenzie did present recent research  on the health and disease status in adults from a population analysis of the Gaelic Irish cemetery site of Ballyhanna, County Donnegal.  The cemetery was in use from the 7th century AD to the 17th century AD and has so far revealed the skeletal remains of over 1300 adult and non-adult individuals, making it one of the largest native medieval collections in Ireland.

On the other end of the spectrum Jonny Geber introduced the bioarchaeology of childhood during the Great Irish famine (AD 1845-1852), with a particular focus on the ‘experienced realities and institutional care of children in the Kilkenny Union Workhouse‘.  This was a hard-hitting talk focusing on the origins, impacts and repercussions of the Great Famine through the non-adults of the workhouse and the remains uncovered within a number of mass graves at the site.  Importantly the talk presented ‘a “dialogue of evidence”, the story of the often invisible disenfranchised and socioeconomically marginalized populace of Ireland during a period of severe suffering’ (Gerber 2014, presentation abstract).  This is the human experience as recognized through osteological and documentary evidence, and stands as a testament to one of the most profound events in Irish history.

Grave Concerns

The next session focused on the graves of the dead and introduced a wider range of topics from prehistoric Europe, with a strong focus on Hungarian archaeology.  One of my favourite presentations in this session was the evidence for physical aggression and a possible putative leprosy case from a Copper Age mass grave at Abony, Hungary, dated to 3800-3600 BC belonging to the Proto boleráz phase, as presented by Kitti Köhler.  I was quite impressed by the inclusion of a 3D model which really highlighted the importance of visual understanding of archaeological contexts and palaeopathological features.  Also discussed in this session was a presentation by my good friend Jennifer Crangle on English medieval post-burial funerary practices, which should be no surprise to blog readers here due to my posts on the charnel chapel at the Rothwell Holy Trinity church which helped form a key part of Jennifer’s research and talk.

People & Places

This shorter session contained a talk given by Thomas Khador focused on Carrowkeel, a truly remarkable Neoltihic passage tomb complex located in County Sligo, where his team analysed 39 individuals found at the site.  Interestingly the remains of the individuals were excavated from the Carrowkeel complex in 1911 but subsequently disappeared for nearly a century before being rediscovered again.  Osteological and stable isotopic analysis indicated that the individuals may have had selective access to the passage tombs (certainly in death but possibly in life as well), which raises questions for the social mobility and social networks during the Neolithic and early Bronze Age periods for Ireland and Atlantic Europe.  There was also a keynote talk by Barra O’Donnabhain titled Anglo-Saxons and Celts: Race, Science and the Irish which was thoroughly thought-provoking, discussing as it did the legitimization of history, identity and selective narration.  This was tied in with the discipline of bioarchaeology and the resilience of some of the older narratives within it.

The Archaeology of Death

Another broad ranging session, from ancient Egyptian body manipulation to Far Eastern Neolithic shell middens in island archaeology.  Also introduced were two talks on the archaeothanatology methodology, with a talk by Emma Green on the application of the principles to identify funerary processes, in this case the use of coffins in burials.  Her research, presented in conjunction with Elizabeth Craig-Atkins at the University of Sheffield, focused on the middle to late Anglo-Saxon cemetery at Sedgeford, in Norfolk, England.  She emphasized the important of accurately recording the archaeology in the field as it is uncovered, using not just context sheets and drawings, but also film and digital photography to ensure each details can be accurately recreated within the analysis and investigation of the research.

Life Before Death

Osteoarchaeologists, dealing with the bones of individuals who may have died hundreds, sometimes thousands of years before analyze them, can sometimes forget that what we view is the culmination of a life lived and all that entails.  This session introduced the study of the individual and the population, with presentations on Roman York by Lauren McIntyre which provided evidence on the demographic composition of the city.  (For those interested in Lauren’s work, and the life of a human osteologist in general, can also read a previous interview with her on my site here).  Ylva Bäckström presented the osteological analysis of a 16th century cemetery from the Sala Silver Mine in central Sweden, highlighting the social composition and differing treatment given in funerary contexts.  The analysis indicated a prevalence of fractures among the burials in earthen graves compared to the burials of individuals within coffins, suggesting one special social category as discussed in written documents; those known as war prisoners.

Population Health

I was particularly intrigued by a few talks in this session, specifically the talk led by Abigail Ash and Ron Pinhasi entitled Difference in Uniformity: Health and Stress in Early Farming Communities, which focused on the Neolithic Linearbandkeramik culture (LBK) and their geographic spread.  Their investigation into the geographic spread of the LBK and use of five representative skeletal populations (for a total of 516 individuals) highlighted palaeopathological changes (non-specific indicators of stress) indicative of differing behaviour between population stress levels within one cultural group.  You can read the open access 2016 article on the results here.  I should state here that my MSc research investigated mobility and social stratification (particularly evidence for the practice of patrilocality) within the LBK of central Europe, so I took a great deal of interest in this talk.

Open Session

This session introduced a number of really interesting talks ranging from analyzing markers of occupational stress by Roisin O’ Reilly, one of the conference organizers, to a multivariate approach to sex determination in ancient and modern pelvis by Samuel Rennie and James Ohman (pleasantly titled ‘Hips Don’t Lie’, which made me chuckle).  The multivariate approach bamboozled me a little at first as the module I did in statistics for my MSc was hard-won, but Samuel quickly demonstrated the importance of the research presented, both for palaeoanthropological and archaeological contexts but also for forensic contexts in the ability to determine the sex of an individual with a 95.65% without a priori knowledge of sex in some instances.  This is definitely one to watch and I am excited as to where this research is heading.

Ethics, Legislation & Reburial

The conference ended with a session on the ethics, legislation and reburial aspects of osteoarchaeology, with talks from Caroline Bennett on the changes of excavation human remains, from once living breathing individuals to archival objects and documents of a past long gone.  This was a thoughtful talk and I really enjoyed being able to think morally and ethically the value of human remains, especially in consideration of the previous talks of the conference as a whole.  In essence this was considered breathing space in order to understand what we do and why we do, the impacts of the job and the value of it.

Catching Up & Saying Goodbye

Whilst I was in Belfast I also made sure that I met up with a fellow (and prolific) blogger Robert M. Chapple, an Irish archaeologist (now retired and happily working in IT) of some repute.  It was with great pleasure that I got to chat to him about Ireland’s archaeology, history and the general state of academia over a delightful meal with the man himself.  (And I must say I owe a debt of gratitude for the free meal, and I aim to pay it forward to the younger generation of archaeologists at my next conference, if I can!).  If you have haven’t already I heartily recommend that you take a look at Robert’s own site, pull up a seat and have a good read – it really is an awesome place to become acquainted with the richness of Ireland’s archaeology and history, complete with personal touches and exciting first hand experiences.  Robert also keeps a downloadable database record of Irish Radiocarbon and Dendrochronological Dates (IRDD), click the link to the website to delve into more than 8000 radiocarbon determinations and more than 300 dendrochronological dates.

As well as catching up with old friends at the conference I also got to meet a host of new friends, including Laura van der Sluis, a doctoral candidate at GAP at QUB who is currently researching 6000 years of subsistence of human populations at Limfjord, Denmark, from the Mesolithic period to the Viking period utilizing stable isotope analysis.  Laura’s research will also analyse the evidence for palaeomobility and changes in palaeodiet in an effort to determine if the availability of marine resources helped to drive cultural changes as recorded in the coastal archaeological record.  I had the joy of talking about the above methods and the laboratory facilities at QUB with Laura whilst taking in the ambient cool October night around the campus and surrounding streets.  Of interest to readers of this site is Laura’s latest co-written research article presenting the results of a palaeodietary analysis of a multi-period (AD 9th to AD 18th centuries) churchyard in Stavanger, Norway, using carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen and sulphur isotopic analysis which indicated a change in diet due to changing religious beliefs and related dietary restrictions.

So all in all I am very glad that I made the short hop across from England to Northern Ireland to attend this rather beautiful conference in Belfast, as I was struck by the very real wealth of Ireland’s history of bioarchaeological investigation and research.  I hope that certain sites and skeletal populations become wider known within British archaeology as a whole as I felt I was discovering it anew.

Advertisements

Skeletal Series Part 6: The Human Shoulder

16 May

This post will focus on the scapula and the clavicle elements of the shoulder girdle.  The scapula provides the back of the shoulder, and the clavicle articulates with the sternum (discussed in previous post) and the top of the arm (the humerus).  The humerus will be discussed in a subsequent post on the elements of the arm.

Excavation

Together with previous posts on the spine and rib cage, this post makes up the ‘trunk’ of the human body.  As ever, care should be taken during excavation & examination.  Both the scapula and the clavicle are fairly tough elements and survive well.  The body and medial border of the scapula is liable to damage however as it is a thin blade of bone (Mays 1999).

On mainland Europe the study of anthropologie de terrain (the study and alignment of the body in a burial context) is often used, especially so in prehistoric sites.  Interestingly by examining the placement of the clavicle bones in burial, you can often tell whether a body has been covered in a shroud or likewise garment in the deposit of the cadaver.  The clavicles are often found near vertical in the upper chest cavity, which itself is often tightly bound.

The Shoulder Girdle Anatomy and Its Function

The shoulder girdle consists of the scapula bone, and the clavicle, which provide support and articulation for the humerus.  They also  anchor a variety of muscles which help rotate, move and flex the humerus.  The joint of the humerus and scapula is called the Glenohumeral Joint, the acromion process (see below) and clavicle is the  Acromioclavicular Joint, & the sternum and clavicle is called the Sternoclavicular Joint (Marshland & Kapoor 2008: 206).  The clavicle functions as the strut for the shoulder whilst the scapula helps provide anchor points for the larger muscles as well as the loose ranging ‘cup’ for the humeral head (White & Folkens 2005: 193).  Because of the lateral placement of the forelimb on the upper human body, we have evolved away from our nearest ancestors, as the forelimb placement gradually changed (See Afarensis article below in relation to our recent hominid brothers).  The diagram below marks out the main features of the shoulder girdle-

Anterior view of the shoulder elements, note only the clavicle and scapula are discussed in this post (Image credit: Britannic Inc 2007).

The clavicle is easy to palpate in your own body, along the length of the bone whilst the scapula spine and acromial process (see below) can be palpated just adjacent medially from the top of either arm.

Clavicle

As for any shoulder element, there are two clavicles present in the human skeleton.  As demonstrated by the above and below diagram, the clavicle is a tubular S shaped bone that sits anteriorly in the shoulder joint and is easily palpated.  The clavicle is oval to circular in cross section (White & Folkens 2005: 193).   The main anatomical landmarks are featured in the diagram below.

Landmark features and muscle attachment sites for clavicle (click to enlargen). Image credit: Wikipedia.

The costal impression is a broad rough surface that anchors the costoclavicular ligament, which strengthens the joint.  The lateral side of the clavicle has two major attachment muscle sites for the trapezuis & deltoideus muscles (White & Folkens 2005: 193).  The clavicle articulates with the acromial process of the scapula at the lateral end, whilst at the medial end it articulates with the clavicular notch of the manubrium.  The clavicle is often broken during a trip or a fall as the bone is so close to the skin, and acts as a supporting strut (Marsland & Kapoor 2008).

There are a few main points to consider when siding a clavicle.  The medial end is rounded whilst the lateral side is flattened.  Most irregularities are roughenings are on the inferior edge of the bone, whilst the bone itself ‘bows anteriorly from the medial end, curves posteriorly at the midshaft and sweeps anteriorly again at the lateral flat end’ (White & Folkens 2005: 195).

Scapula

The scapula is a ‘large, flat, triangular bone with two basic surfaces; the posterior (dorsal) and costal (anterior, or ventral)’ (White & Folkens 2005: 195).  The bone articulates with the humerus at the glenoid cavity (or fossa), and the distal clavicle on a small facet on the acromion process (see below diagram).  The ‘coracoid process just anteriorly and superlaterally from the superior border of the scapula’ whilst the acromion process is the lateral projection of the scapula spine.  Both of these projection points provide anchoring points for a number of key muscle abductors, rotators and flexors, amongst others (White & Folkens 2005: 200).  The glenoid cavity provides the humeral head with great mobility because of how shallow the fossa is; however the arm can be easier to dislocate then the leg bones (Marshland & Kapoor 2008).  The scapular spine provides an anchor point for the acromion process, and it key in distinguishing the posterior aspect of the body.

Distinctive landmark features on the scapula (anterior view, lateral view and posterior view). Image credit: Wikipedia.

Interestingly scapula fractures are rare in the archaeology record, but when evident they are usually located in the blade of the bone.  They are usually marks indicative of interpersonal violence due to the posterior position and location (Roberts & Manchester 2010: 104).  However as pointed out above the blade is usually damaged before or during excavation due to its delicate nature.

Another feature to be aware of is the lack of fusion that can take place at the acromion epiphysis (growing plate).  The most famous case concerning the lack of fused acromional points in a  skeletal series are from the remains of individuals from the Tudor ship The Mary Rose.  Of the skeletons studied, 13.6% of their number had unfused acromions (see diagram above/below).  The reason suggested was that they represented the archers aboard the ship, and had practised since childhood which had prevented any fusion of the element because of the constant stress, strain and movement needed to be a top bowman (Roberts & Manchester 2010: 105).

Posterior shoulder anatomy showing the major muscle (supra and inferspinatus muscles). Image credit: source.

When siding and investigating a piece of suspected scapula bone, it should be noted that it is mostly a thin bone, and unlike the pelvis, there is no spongy bone sandwiched between the cortices.  The following is taken from (yes that’s right!) White & Folkens 2005, page 202, with some modification.

  • The glenoid cavity is teardrop-shaped, with the blunt end inferior.
  • An isolated acromion is concave on its inferior surface.  The clavicular facet is anteriormedially relative to the tip.
  • For an isolated coracoid element the smooth surface is inferior whilst the rough superior.  The anterior body is longer and thee hollow on the inferior surface faces the glenoid area.
  • The spine thins medially whilst it thickens towards the acromion.  The inferior border has a tubercle that points inferiorly, as seen in the above diagram.
  • On the posterior body there are several transverse muscle attachment sites.  These are usually quite prominent, and are key indicators in helping to visualise the orientation of the scapula.

Range Of Movement

Lateral view of the rotation of the shoulder joint. Image credit: Wikipedia.

Anterior view of the rotation of the shoulder joint. Image credit: Wikipedia.

An Arctic Case Study

There is a perception, garnered from the earlier descriptions of the Arctic aboriginal groups, that the native Eskimo groups were passive, of ‘quiet repose and lived in a state of non-violence’ (Larsen 1997: 131).  New bioarchaeological investigations are helping to provide data that is slowly leading to a revision in the review of those perceptions.

A Saunaktuk site, dated to the late 14th Century AD, located east of the Mackenzie Delta in the Canadian Northwest Territories has provided compelling evidence of violent confrontation between native groups (Larsen 1997).  As Larsen (1997: 132) discusses the skeletal remains of 35 Inuit Eskimo Villages represented at the site, it becomes clear that there is evidence for violent death and body treatment, which is indicated by extensive perimortem skeletal modifications.  A large percentage of the whole group are adolescents (68.6%), whilst all of individuals represented had not been purposefully buried.  It is suggested that the group represents a targeted selection whilst other adults where away from the site (Melbye & Fairgrieve 1994).

Studying the bones in anatomical position. Image credit: Google.

On the skeletons themselves, hundreds of knife cuts were evidenced.  These ranged from around the articular joints and neck vertebrae, which is indicative of decapitation and dismemberment (Larsen 1997).  As well as this there are numerous cuts on the facial bones on many of the victims, with cuts also present on the clavicles and scapulae as well (Melbye & Fairgrieve 1994).  Many of these cuts reflect an overall pattern associated with dismemberment, removal of muscle and other soft tissues as well as intentional mutilation.  There is the distinct possibility of cannibalism having been carried out at this site.

In particular, unique to this Saunaktuk skeletal series, is the ‘presence of gauges at the ends of long bones’ (Larsen 1997: 132).  The modifications of the gauges on the adult distal femora are consistent with oral tradition describing a type of torture where the victims knees were pierced and the individual dragged around the village by a cord passed through these perforations’ (Larsen 1997: 132).

We have to understand that there is a vast rich historical record that does help to provide a context for this group to group violence as recognised by the skeletal and oral records.  Violent interactions at this locality occurred between the groups, and intergroup violence has been recorded by many explorers for the Hudson Bay Company in the 18th century (Melbye & Fairgrieve 1994).  Other pre-contact sites such as Kodiak Island in Alaska, alongside the sites of Uyak Bay, Crag Point & Koniag Island there is also evidence of culturally modified human bone.  However, we must remember the context in which these actions had taken place.  There are a small selection of the overall number of ore-contact Arctic sites in this area.  Please refer back to previous posts by my guest blogger Kate Brown on the pre conditions and difficulties of diagnosing cannibalism.

Further Online Sources

Bibliography

Larsen, C. 1997. Bioarchaeology: Interpreting Behaviour From The Human Skeleton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Marsland, D. & Kapoor, S. 2008. Rheumatology and Orthopaedics. London: Mosby Elsevier.

Mays, S. 1999. The Archaeology of Human Bones. Glasgow: Bell & Bain Ltd.

Melbye, J. & S. I. 1994. ‘A Massacre And Possible Cannibalism In The Canadian Arctic: New Evidence From The Saunatuk Site (NgTn-1)’. Arctic Anthropology. Vol 31. No 2. PP 57-77. Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin.

Roberts, C. & Manchester, K. 2010. The Archaeology of Disease Third Edition. Stroud: The History Press.

Waldron, T. 2009. Palaeopathology: Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

White, T. & Folkens, P. 2005. The Human Bone Manual. London: Elsevier Academic Press.