Is bioarchaeology a handmaiden to history? Developing a historical bioarchaeology

• Published in: Journal of anthropological archaeology Vol. 26; no. 3; pp. 486 - 515
• Main Author: Perry, Megan A.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Amsterdam Elsevier Inc 01.09.2007; Elsevier; Elsevier BV
• Subjects: Anthropology; Archaeology; Biological anthropology; Byzantine civilization; Byzantine Empire; Classical Near East; Ecology; Generalities; Historical bioarchaeology; Historiography; Human remains; Mental stress; Non-specific indicators of stress; Organisation and history of research; Population; Prehistory and protohistory; Roman civilization; Roman Empire; Skeletal trauma; Roman; Byzantine Empire; Classic; Near East; Asia; Arabia; Historiography; Historical bioarchaeology; Roman Empire; Skeletal trauma; Non-specific indicators of stress; Byzantine Empire; Classical Near East; Study; Research; Document; History; Information; Source; Case; Inscription; Comparison; Individual; Byzantine Empire: Classical Near East; Population; Skeleton
• ISSN: 0278-4165; 1090-2686
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jaa.2007.02.002

Bioarchaeologists researching historic period populations recognize that textual sources provide abundant information on ancient political, social, and economic contexts of the individuals they are investigating. These researchers however often treat these documents and inscriptions as truthful, legitimate historical narratives simply used for comparison with biological data. This case study from the Classical Near East demonstrates the utility of critically assessing textual data used in bioarchaeological research in addition to the applicability of bioarchaeology for answering research questions in Near Eastern archaeology. Multivariate assessment of non-specific indicators of stress and evidence of skeletal trauma identified homogeneous health and disease profiles among indigenous communities in provinces of Arabia and Palaestina Tertia in addition to higher trauma levels among pastoral nomadic samples. These results contrast with some forms of textual data from the region emphasizing the barbaric nature of local populations, perceptions that apparently did not influence their treatment by imperial administrators. Addressing why textual and biological data differ and including the physical, ideological, political, and cultural context of ancient writers, papyri, inscriptions, and graffiti in this case increased bioarchaeology’s interpretive ability for understanding life under Roman and Byzantine rule in the Near East.