Cross‐sectional analysis of long bones, occupational activities and long‐distance trade of the Classic Maya from Xcambó—Archaeological and osteological evidence

Abstract

Xcambó is a Classic period Maya site (250-700 AD) situated on the northern coast of Yucatan, Mexico. Archaeological evidence suggests that the site began as a salt production center but adopted a more administrative role as a commercial port in the Late Classic period. Economic growth, depending on its magnitude, could have affected the daily occupations of Xcambó's inhabitants. However, this is difficult to infer from the archaeological record. The aim of this study was to directly evaluate this possibility through skeletal analysis. Since diaphyseal robusticity and shape are predominantly influenced by mechanical loading history, long bone cross-sections can be used to access activity patterns. To this end, humeri and femora of 47 male and 35 female adult specimens from two Xcambó population samples were scrutinized. Our analysis satisfies general archaeological expectations and provides additional information on the population's physical response to economic growth. Decreasing robusticity and femoral anterior-posterior rigidity indicate an overall decrease in physical workload and mobility, concomitant with the site's increasing administrative function. We also observed a significant decrease in sexual dimorphism, possibly attributable to the differential response of male and female physical work spheres during socioeconomic change. In general, our findings suggest even nonsubsistence based socioeconomic change can significantly affect the bone structure of a population, rendering activity analysis an important aspect of the reconstruction of living conditions of past populations.

Changes in skeletal robusticity in an iron age agropastoral group: The samnites from the Alfedena necropolis (Abruzzo, Central Italy)

“…The value of J 0.73 is proportional to the section modulus (Zp), which can be more precisely calculated dividing J by the average radius of the section. Although J 0.73 is proportional to rather than strictly equivalent to Zp, we will refer to it as Zp, as done in previous research (e.g., Maggiano et al, 2008). …”

Morphological features of the fibula in Jomon hunter‐gatherers from the shell mounds of the Pacific coastal area

“…Although a wide variety of factors can affect long bone diaphyseal morphology (Pearson and Lieberman, 2004;Ruff et al, 2006a), mechanical loading, associated with different weightbearing activities, is a key influence on the relative strength, and hence, the diaphyseal area, of lower limb bones (Shaw and Stock, 2009;Rantalainen et al, 2010;Ruff and Larsen, 2014). Anthropologists have, therefore, used diaphyseal morphology as a basis to explore the activities, environment, and possible social organization of past populations Takahashi, 1982, 1984; Stock and Pheiffer, 2001;Holt, 2003;Stock and Pfeiffer, 2004;Ruff et al, 1984;Ruff et al, 2006b;Marchi et al, 2006;Charlson et al, 2007;Maggiano et al, 2008;Marchi, 2008;Sparacello et al, 2008;Stock et al, 2011;Larsen and Ruff, 2011;Trinkaus and Ruff, 2012;Shaw and Stock, 2013;Zaki et al, 2015; Stock and Macintosh, in press). As examples, the crosssectional shape and robusticity of the diaphysis of lower limb bones have been used to explain higher lower limb loading activities in populations of hunter-gatherers, compared to agriculture or industrial populations, as well as to elucidate possible division of labor among males and females within and across different populations (Ruff, 1987;Bridge, 1989;Nakatsukasa, 1990;Wescott, 2006;Marchi, 2008;Ruff and Larsen, 2014).…”

Identity and Difference: Complicating Gender in Archaeology

“…As such, they may advocate, albeit inadvertently so, for biological determinism. When concurrently studying pelvic differences and skeletal markers of habitual activities, bioarchaeologists often deduce that males were highly mobile and/or active regardless of the culture, period, or pursuit-hunting, trading, farming, herding, fishing (e.g., Eshed et al 2004;Maggiano et al 2008). In these same studies, little is stated about Woman's activities, insinuating that her primary responsibilities involved childbearing, childcaring, lactation, and family maintenance.…”