Commingled crypts: Comparative health among Byzantine monastics in the Levant

Abstract

Objectives: Early Byzantine (A.D. 330-842) monastic rules stipulated that entrants relinquished familial connections, personal belongings and secular relationships to become part of the ascetic collective that continued in death, resulting in bioarchaeological marginalization, as was the case of the monastics excavated from the Chapel of Robebus at Mount Nebo, Jordan (ca. A.D. 491-640). It was hypothesized that compared to contemporary monastic groups, the Mount Nebo monastics experienced poorer health and gravitated to Mount Nebo, owing to its association with the Prophet Moses and proximity to the Dead Sea, Livias baths and Jordan River, all associated with curative benefits, especially for those suffering from leprosy. Materials and Methods: The commingled remains of 73 adult males from Mount Nebo and the articulated skeletons (n = 27) from the Sanctuary of Agios Lot at Deir 'Ain 'Abata (Jordan) were assessed for paleopathology, then compared with a contemporary commingled group from the Monastery of Saint Euthymius at Khan-el-Ahmar (Judean Desert) (n = 117).Results: No skeletal evidence of leprosy was observed among the groups. Most Mount Nebo individuals did not reach an older age, yet injuries, severe osteoarthritis, lower leg osteoperiostitis and antemortem tooth loss were common. The paleopathological profile was similar at Deir 'Ain 'Abata, but paleopathology was negligible at Khan-el-Ahmar. Conclusions:The similar paleopathological profiles of the Jordanian monastic groups suggest that the proximity to the Dead Sea may have attracted monastics to both sites, in addition to spirituality, but leprosy was not a factor based on the skeletal evidence. K E Y W O R D S bioarchaeology, healing, Jordan, leprosy, paleopathology

A novel method for sorting and reassociating commingled human remains using deviation analysis

“…

Commingling of human skeletal remains, where bones from more than one person are mixed up in an assemblage, has been a complex issue in the field of forensic anthropology for decades. Commingling can occur in a variety of circumstances, such as natural disasters, airplane crashes, terrorist attacks, and wars or conflicts [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8].Commingled remains obstruct the personal identification process because the estimation of biological characteristics relies on combined data from multiple points of the skeleton [9]. Further, if some of the remains cannot be associated with an individual, then it is unlikely that those elements will be returned to the decedent's family for final deposition.

…”

“…Commingling of human skeletal remains, where bones from more than one person are mixed up in an assemblage, has been a complex issue in the field of forensic anthropology for decades. Commingling can occur in a variety of circumstances, such as natural disasters, airplane crashes, terrorist attacks, and wars or conflicts [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8].…”

Biological histories of an elite: Skeletons from the Royal Chapel of Lugo Cathedral (NW Spain)

“…Religious people were also deeply involved in the economic and social history. Human remains from convents and cathedrals, being important osteological and anthropological records, are also predominantly used in studies to address differences between ecclesiastical and lay people (e.g., DeWitte et al, 2013;Mays, 1997;Müldner & Richards, 2007;Quintelier et al, 2014), diseases (e.g., Judd, 2020;Rogers & Waldron, 2001;Väre et al, 2020), or diet and mobility (e.g., Ahlin Sundman, 2018;Müldner et al, 2009;Sarkic et al, 2019).…”

Paleopathology of Commingled Remains: A Case Study from the Prehispanic Highlands of Peru

“…In addition, the commingled nature of remains may render the calculation and interpretation of disease prevalence challenging (Perry and Edwards 2021). Despite these many limitations, recent paleopathological studies in Europe and the Middle East have demonstrated the possibilities of differential diagnoses of these challenging commingled contexts (e.g., Abegg et al 2021;Assis et al 2018;Austin 2017;Brickley and Buckberry, 2015;Judd 2019;Perry and Edwards 2021). Perry and Edwards (2021) advocate for the use of the biological approach when carrying out differential diagnoses of skeletal lesions which examines each lesion independently and "identifies the underlying biological processes that could produce the skeletal lesions observed" (Perry and Edwards 2021:222), explaining that such an approach is preferred by many paleopathologists as it "allow recognition of co-or multimorbid conditions, rather than assuming all observations present a suite of skeletal lesions from one condition" (Perry and Edwards 2021:222).…”