Age-Related Cortical Bone Maintenance and Loss in an Imperial Roman Population

Abstract

This article explores age-and sex-related patterns of cortical bone loss, assessed by radiogrammetry of the second metacarpal, from a skeletal sample excavated from the Imperial Roman port city of Velia (1st and 2nd century AD), to contribute to our understanding of health and disease during the Imperial period. Patterns of age-and sex-related bone loss and health at Velia are also compared with other historical samples and to modern clinical data. It was hypothesised that patterns of age-and sex-related bone loss in this wellrepresented Roman sample (n = 71) would mirror those reported in modern populations. Differences in the quantity of cortical bone between three age groups (18-29, 30-49 and 50+ years) are significant in both men and women; however, the pattern of bone loss differs between the sexes. Women show a gradual decline in bone quantity beginning in middle age, whereas men only lose bone in old age. However, there are no significant sex differences at any age group in the metacarpal cortical index. These findings suggest the hypothesis should be refuted because significant sex differences, particularly in old age, are an expected hallmark of bone loss in Western populations today. The possible biocultural and gender-related factors that may have contributed to the observed patterns of bone maintenance and loss at Velia are discussed.

A multi‐method assessment of bone maintenance and loss in anImperialRoman population: Implications for future studies of age‐related bone loss in the past

“…Sex and age distributions are fairly well balanced, albeit with a small bias toward males overall. Further, the mortality profile for the Velia population (Beauchesne & Agarwal, ) shows that differential preservation or excavation was not a large biasing factor, given that many young infants were recovered and that the mortality profile as a whole follows the typical pattern of high mortality in the youngest and oldest age groups as expected in historical populations (Chamberlain, ).…”

“…The methodological value of metacarpal radiogrammetry has been recognized in bioarchaeology, and the method has been particularly informative about sex‐ and age‐related patterns of bone growth and loss in the past (Beauchesne & Agarwal, ; Glencross & Agarwal, ; Gosman et al, ; Ives & Brickley, ; Lazenby, ; Mays, ). Radiogrammetry is a rapid and non‐destructive method, and a good proxy for overall bone mineral desnity (Ives & Brickley, ; Mays, ).…”

Metacarpal cortical bone loss and osteoporotic fractures in the Coimbra Identified Skeletal Collection

“…Also, a socio‐economic enquiry conducted in the region of Coimbra in 1906 showed that food rations for women were both quantitatively and qualitatively inferior (Pereira, ). In skeletal samples, the cortical bone has been shown to decrease with age in both males and females (Beauchesne & Agarwal, ; Beresheim, Pfeiffer, Grynpas, & Alblas, ; Ives, ; Mays, ) or only in females (Mays, ; Umbelino et al, ). Other studies at the CISC also suggest that cortical bone loss in males is negligible (Bergot et al, ; Curate & Cunha, ).…”

“…Sexual differences regarding cortical bone loss have been expressed in studies involving both modern (e.g., Barnett & Nordin, 1960;Ginsburg, Kobyliansky, Malkin, & Rudan, 2001;Karasik, Ginsburg, Livshits, Pavlovsky, & Kobyliansky, 2000;Virtamä & Helelä, 1969) and archeological samples (e.g., Agarwal, Glencross, & Beauchesne, 2011;Carlson, Armelagos, & Gerven, 1976;Cho & Stout, 2011;Dewey, Armelagos, & Bartley, 1969;Drusini, Bredariol, Carrara, & Bonati, 2000;Ives, 2007;Mays et al, 1998;Umbelino et al, 2016). Other paleopathological studies found no differences between sexes (e.g., Beauchesne & Agarwal, 2014;Beauchesne & Agarwal, 2017;Mays, 1996).…”

“…Cortical bone loss occurs mostly through intracortical remodelling (Zebaze & Seeman, ). Radiogrammetry, a method that determines the amplitude or geometry of the cortical bone in tubular bones, is suitable to evaluate cortical bone loss in historical/archeological contexts (e.g., Beauchesne & Agarwal, , ; Glencross & Agarwal, ; Ives & Brickley, ; Lazenby, ; Mays, , , ; Mays, Lees, & Stevenson, ; Umbelino et al, ). Metacarpal radiogrammetry was independently and formally described in 1960 (Barnett & Nordin, ; Virtamä & Mähönen, ).…”