7.9 KiB
| title | chunk | source | category | tags | date_saved | instance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bioarchaeology | 6/6 | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioarchaeology | reference | science, encyclopedia | 2026-05-05T13:58:28.486766+00:00 | kb-cron |
== Biological distance analysis == Biological distance analysis (also called biodistance analysis) is a method used to assess genetic relationships among past human individuals and groups in archaeological contexts by examining skeletal traits, particularly metric and nonmetric features of the skull and dentition. By quantifying biological similarities and differences, this approach provides insight into the population structure of ancient societies, including migration patterns, kinship, and post-marital residence. It is often employed when ancient DNA (aDNA) preservation is poor or when destructive sampling is not possible due to curatorial or ethical constraints. Although less precise than aDNA analysis, biodistance analysis remains a key tool in bioarchaeological research, complementing other molecular, isotopic, and material culture evidence.
== Biocultural bioarchaeology == The study of human remains can illuminate the relationship between physical bodies and socio-cultural conditions and practices, via a biocultural bioarchaeology model. Bioarchaeology is typically regarded as a positivist, science-based discipline, while the social sciences are regarded as constructivist. Bioarchaeology has been criticized for having little to no concern for culture or history. One scholar argued that scientific/forensic scholarship ignores cultural/historic factors. He proposed that a biocultural version of bioarchaeology offered a more meaningful, nuanced, and relevant picture, especially for descent populations. Biocultural bioarchaeology combines standard forensic techniques with investigations of demography and epidemiology in order to assess socioeconomic conditions experienced by human communities. For example, incorporation of analysis of grave goods can further the understanding of daily activities. Some bioarchaeologists view the discipline as a crucial interface between the science and the humanities; as the human body is made and re-made by both biological and cultural factors. Another type of bioarchaeology focuses on quality of life, lifestyle, behavior, biological relatedness, and population history. It does not closely link skeletal remains to their archaeological context, and may best be viewed as a "skeletal biology of the past". Inequalities exist in all human societies. Bioarchaeology has helped to dispel the idea that life for foragers of the past was "nasty, brutish and short"; bioarchaeological studies reported that foragers of the past were often healthy, while agricultural societies tended to have increased incidence of malnutrition and disease. One study compared foragers from Oakhurst to agriculturalists from K2 and Mapungubwe and reported that agriculturalists from K2 and Mapungubwe were not subject to the lower nutritional levels expected. Danforth argues that more "complex" state-level societies display greater health differences between elites and the rest of society, with elites having the advantage, and that this disparity increases as societies become more unequal. Some status differences in society do not necessarily mean radically different nutritional levels; Powell did not find evidence of great nutritional differences between elites and commoners, but did find lower rates of anemia among elites in Moundville. An area of increasing interest interested in understanding inequality is the study of violence. Researchers analyzing traumatic injuries on human remains have shown that social status and gender can have a significant impact on exposure to violence. Numerous researchers study violence in human remains, exploring violent behavior, including intimate partner violence, child abuse, institutional abuse, torture, warfare, human sacrifice, and structural violence.
== Ethics == Ethical issues with bioarchaeology revolve around the treatment and respect for the dead. Large-scale skeletal collections were first amassed in the US in the 19th century, largely the remains of Native Americans. No permission was granted by surviving family for study and display. Federal laws such as 1990's NAGPRA (Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act) allowed Native Americans to regain control over their ancestors' remains and associated artifacts. Many archaeologists did not realize that many people perceive archaeologists as non-productive and/or grave robbers. Concerns about mistreatment of remains are not unfounded: in a 1971 Minnesota excavation, White and Native American remains were treated differently; Whites were reburied, while Native Americans were moved to a natural history museum. African American bioarchaeology grew after NAGPRA and its effect of ending the study of Native American remains. Bioarchaeology in Europe was not as disrupted by repatriation issues. However, because much of European archaeology has been focused on classical roots, artifacts and art have been emphasized and Roman and post-Roman skeletal remains were nearly completely neglected until the 1980s. In prehistoric European archaeology, biological remains began to be analyzed earlier than in classical archaeology. While ethical approaches to the excavation and analysis of physical human remains have received considerable attention, professional and academic dialogue regarding how to appropriately record, share, and display human remains in the digital realm is less developed. While digital technologies for recording and analysing human remains are increasingly accessible, justification for such recording and analysis is essential e.g. 3D scanning performed simply because it is possible is inappropriate and disrespectful to the deceased.
== See also == Ancient DNA Biocultural anthropology Biological distance analysis Odontometrics Osteoarchaeology Paleopathology Zooarchaeology 2025 in bioarchaeology 2026 in bioarchaeology Dental analysis in archaeology
== References ==
== Further reading == J. Buikstra, 1977. "Biocultural dimensions of archaeological study: a regional perspective". In:Biocultural adaptation in prehistoric America, pp. 67–84. University of Georgia Press. J. Buikstra and L. Beck, eds., 2006. "Bioarchaeology: the Contextual Study of Human Remains." Elsevier. M. Katzenberg and S. Saunders, eds., 2000. Biological anthropology of the human skeleton. Wiley. K. Killgrove, 2014. Bioarchaeology Archived 2019-06-26 at the Wayback Machine. In: Oxford Annotated Bibliographies Online. Oxford. C.S. Larsen, 1997. Bioarchaeology: interpreting behavior from the human skeleton. Cambridge University Press. Law, Matt (2019). "Beyond Extractive Practice: Bioarchaeology, Geoarchaeology and Human Palaeoecology for the People". Internet Archaeology (53). doi:10.11141/ia.53.6. S. Mays, 1998. The archaeology of human bones. Routledge. Samuel J. Redman, 2016. Bone Rooms: From Scientific Racism to Human Prehistory in Museums. Harvard University Press. M. Parker Pearson, 2001. The archaeology of death and burial. Texas A&M University Press. D. Ubelaker, 1989. Human skeletal remains: excavation, analysis, interpretation. Taraxacum. T. White, 1991. Human osteology. Academic Press.
== External links == Organizations
American Association of Physical Anthropologists Biological Anthropology Section of the American Anthropological Association British Association of Biological Anthropologists and Osteoarchaeologists Canadian Association for Physical Anthropology Journals
American Journal of Physical Anthropology International Journal of Osteoarchaeology HOMO: Journal of Comparative Human Biology International Journal of Paleopathology Bioarchaeology of the Near East Other
Paleopathology The African Burial Ground Bioarchaeology and the Center for Bioarchaeological Research National NAGPRA homepage Bones Don't Lie Blog Powered by Osteons Blog Kristina Killgrove's Bioarchaeology Blog at Forbes