Osteological Research in Classical Archaeology

STATE OF THE DISCIPLINE Osteological Research in Classical Archaeology MICHAEL MACKINNON Abstract within the discipline and a consequent mass of avail- The purpose of this article is threefold: (1) to provide able information. But is this really the case? What is a brief historical overview of human and nonhuman os- the history of osteological research for classical sites? teological studies in classical archaeology to get a sense of How have bones been treated and examined within why and how the disciplines developed as they did; (2) to the field of classical archaeology over the course of examine the current state of research in human osteology and zooarchaeology in the classical context, providing its development? What important information have examples of case studies to help highlight the value (and they yielded in our analysis of ancient Greek and Ro- limitations) of osteological analyses in reconstructing man cultures? What impact has bone analysis had on aspects of ancient Greek and Roman cultures and the en- the discipline? And what might the future hold for vironments in which they lived; and (3) to outline future osteological research in classical archaeology? Despite directions for these disciplines, specifically in terms of connections that human osteologists and zooarchaeolo- periods of uncertainty throughout its history, I argue gists can share with one another, and how both, in turn, in this State of the Discipline piece that osteological can cultivate ties to the wider fields of classics, archae- research is now firmly entrenched within classical ar- ology, and anthropology to increase our knowledge of chaeology. Nevertheless, while the potential in some the natural and cultural worlds of antiquity. While some aspects of the discipline remains untapped, the future aspects of osteological work in classical archaeology remain underdeveloped, the future holds strong promise holds strong promise for greater use and integration for greater use and integration of osteological data within of osteological data to reconstruct a more holistic view this context.* of the classical world. definition controversies: the name game introduction Despite their common presence on archaeologi- For many, a skeleton elicits fascination and intrigue. cal sites, there is still some confusion about how and The last parts of an animal’s body to survive, bones are under what theoretical and methodological umbrella a durable remnant of that creature’s life. Clues to our osteological remains should be analyzed. The confu- own lives remain on our skeletons, while the bones of sion extends to the name of the discipline housing the animals we use provide information about their their examination. This is a pivotal question, since roles and value in human society. Skeletal remains, the definition (and subsequent academic department both human and nonhuman, represent an important placement or affiliation) of the discipline itself often category of archaeological finds. On some sites they shapes the analytical procedures and theoretical direc- are all that remains of a culture or its activities. tions pursued. In the world of classification, there are Considering that bones are frequently encountered “splitters,” who fragment concepts into smaller parts, at classical archaeological sites, one might expect an and “lumpers,” who collect concepts together. Both impressive database of osteological material to have are essential in any field seeking to create order among accumulated, with an equally long history of growth a multitude of facts, methodologies, and data. How- * I am grateful to Lea Stirling, Umberto Albarella, Debo- German Archaeological Institute in Rome, M. Aylwin Cotton rah Merrett, and Margaret Judd for discussing some of these Foundation, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Coun- issues with me. Thanks are also extended to the editorial cil of Canada, Wiener Laboratory (American School of Clas- staff at the AJA, as well as to the anonymous reviewers of this sical Studies at Athens), University of Alberta, University of manuscript for their helpful comments and suggestions. My Arizona, Boston University, Cambridge University, University osteoarchaeological research on classical sites has been sup- of Georgia, University of Louisville, and University of Winni- ported over the years by the following agencies and univer- peg. An extensive bibliographical list of human osteological sities, to which I am deeply thankful: American Academy in and zooarchaeological reports for classical sites is available on Rome, Archaeological Institute of America, Associazione In- the AJA Web site (http://www.ajaonline.org), under “Supple- ternazionale di Archeologia Classica, British School at Rome, mental Data.” 473 American Journal of Archaeology 111 (2007) 473–504 474 MICHAEL MACKINNON [AJA 111 ever, each can promote chaos as researchers haggle sites (cf. osteoarchaeology) compose only a portion of over what best applies where and when. What exactly bioarchaeology. The term still carries its encompass- is meant by “bioarchaeology” and “osteoarchaeology” ing definition among many academic departments in (both of which are used in relation to bone research in Britain and Europe and has become allied with envi- archaeology)? Much of this depends on the approach ronmental archaeology in some areas. Bioarchaeol- taken, but even at this stage, there is disagreement. ogy in this respect is lumped with a larger range of The terms “bioarchaeology” and “osteoarchaeol- material analyses of ancient life—plant and animal, ogy” never existed in any official sense until processual including human. archaeology emerged in the 1960s and 1970s. Binford, In North America, bioarchaeology has become Clark, and others advocated a more scientific and more restricted in scope. Buikstra redefined the term less culture-historical approach. This “New Archaeol- to refer to human biology in archaeology, specifically ogy” stressed model building and hypothesis testing, to archaeological applications of principles from bio- with a greater input from the physical and biological logical or physical anthropology.4 Given that bones sciences. Bones, seeds, soils, sediments, and related tend to be what chiefly survive of human beings, bio- biological and geological remains received increased archaeology has since come to denote, at least for attention during excavations for the data they re- a North American audience, the scientific study of vealed about issues such as site formation, paleoenvi- human skeletal remains from archaeological sites. ronments, and diets. Coalitions of disciplines formed Under this definition, bioarchaeology is removed within the processual agenda as archaeology looked from its larger ties to the study of all types of biologi- to biology, osteology, botany, geology, and other fields cal remains. to increase its scientific relevance. Definitions and home departments for disciplines The term “osteoarchaeology” is perhaps the easier become even more confusing with the addition of of the two to define, but not without controversy. “classical” to the mix. How does one qualify osteo- Introduced in 1973 by researchers such as Møller- archaeological or bioarchaeological research that is Christensen and Uerpmann,1 the term generally re- conducted in the context of classical archaeology? fers to the analysis of bone (Greek osteon) remains. “Classical bioarchaeology” is formed by a jumble of Osteoarchaeology could be restricted to include only disciplines—classics, anthropology, biology, archaeol- “bone” remains or branch out to incorporate bones ogy—that intermix to cover a range of humanistic, so- and bony structures (e.g., shell, cartilage). The term cial scientific, and natural scientific aspects. At its core, itself implies no strict division between human and therefore, classical bioarchaeology should provide a nonhuman bones, but perhaps the first question asked truly interdisciplinary means to reconstruct the natu- of an osteoarchaeologist is one’s focus—human bones ral and cultural world of classical antiquity. The same or animal bones?—ignoring that humans are animals can be said of “classical osteoarchaeology.” By default, and that osteologically there are great similarities it, too, is an interdisciplinary field, even if it achieves among all animals. its reconstructions of ancient life mainly through the Defining bioarchaeology presents more complica- analysis of bones from archaeological contexts. tions. Although “bio” generally refers to “life” or “living organisms,” the term “bioarchaeology” was proposed osteological research in classical by Clark2 to refer to the study of animal bones in an archaeology: avenues to pursue and archaeological context (currently a field known as limitations to address zooarchaeology or archaeozoology)3 but subsequently It is in this spirit of interdisciplinary research that I expanded its domain to include the analysis of all types examine the development, current status, and future of biological remains, plant and animal, recovered role of osteoarchaeology in the classical context. Look- from a site. Thus, bone analyses from archaeological ing past the difficulty of defining bioarchaeology, I 1 Møller-Christensen 1973; Uerpmann 1973. however, there is much overlap in the underlying goals, meth- 2 Clark 1972. odologies, and reporting tactics for both. North American 3 The relative merits of the two terms have been argued scholars tend to use the term “zooarchaeology,” while “ar- among animal bone osteologists

Load more