Entheseal changes and demographic/health indicators in the upper extremity of modern Americans: Associations with age and physical activity

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to further the understanding of the relationship between age and entheseal changes by using trends in living Americans compared to skeletal remains of modern Americans, and applying the knowledge to the bioarchaeological record. Documentation of age, activity level, body mass index, stature, and body mass was combined with entheseal change scores gathered from the upper extremity to statistically test the relationship between age and entheseal change with and without controls of documented demographic and health factors. An active subsample was constructed using self‐reported repetitive activities and discernment of position within stated career. Fibrocartilaginous entheses reported in the literature to be better suited to estimate occupation were separated from other entheses. A series of Cochran–Mantel–Hanzel and analysis of variance‐based tests were applied to the data. Interobserver reliability was also examined with a linear‐weighted Cohen's kappa. Statistical analysis shows only 1 enthesis has a significant positive relationship with age and 2 with activity. Body mass index and body mass were associated with 9 entheses that were spread across the occupation‐associated fibrocartilaginous entheses and all other entheses. Interobserver reliability ranged from low to substantial agreement. Interobserver error estimates suggest some entheses are more reliable than others. Results provide little support for a relationship between age and entheseal changes and activity and entheseal changes, which partially coincides with previous research. An increase in activity with age in our sample, around the age of retirement, mirrors trends in living Americans and supports our conclusions. For bioarchaeologists, these results suggest interpretations of entheses should be cautiously applied and revolve around body size rather than activity levels.

Virtual skeletons and digital muscles: an experimental bioarchaeological approach to the pre-Hispanic production of millstones (Tenerife, Canary Islands)

“…Furthermore, the impact of these muscles has also been analyzed for the aboriginal population of Tenerife (Estévez, 2005), interpreted as a derivation of the usual practice of applying force with flexed arms. However, it must be taken into account that the aetiology of EC is quite complex since it is influenced by different influences of genetic, hormonal, degenerative, and metabolic origin (Villotte et al, 2010;Cardoso & Henderson, 2013;Godde et al, 2018;Bakirci et al, 2020;Salega, 2021;Villotte et al, 2021). Thus, we should be cautious when associating the robustness of certain muscular forces with specific activities.…”

Special issue adaptive tools for resilient bones: Biostatistical approaches to past physical activity in osteoarchaeology

“…More than a decade later, the International Journal of Osteoarchaeology published another special issue related to activity, which focused on technical and theoretical advances in entheseal changes research (Henderson & Alves Cardoso, 2013). In addition to these transformative special issues, there have also been numerous impactful publications relating to interdisciplinary perspectives, methodological advancements, experimental studies, terminology, questions regarding contributing factors, and critiques (see Acosta et al, 2017; Djukić et al, 2015, 2020; Godde et al, 2018; He & de Almeida Prado, 2021; Henderson et al, 2016; Karakostis et al, 2018; Karakostis, Jeffery, et al, 2019; Karakostis, Wallace, et al, 2019; Karakostis, Haeufle, et al, 2021; Karakostis, Reyes‐Centeno, et al, 2021; Michopoulou et al, 2015, 2017; Milella et al, 2015; Niinimäki & Salmi, 2016, 2021; Nikita et al, 2019; Nolte & Wilczak, 2013; Salmi et al, 2020; Villotte & Knüsel, 2013; Villotte et al, 2016; Wallace et al, 2017).…”

Differences in entheseal changes in the phalanges between ecotypes of Fennoscandian reindeer

“…However, there are several methodological and aetiological uncertainties involved (Jurmain, Cardoso, Henderson, & Villotte, 2012). Several contributing factors have been identified, most notably age (Cardoso & Henderson, 2010; Godde, Taylor, & Gutierrez, 2018; Michopoulou, Nikita, & Valakos, 2015; Niinimäki, 2011; Weiss, 2003), regardless which entheseal observation method is used (Acosta, Henderson, & Cunha, 2017; Milella, Belcastro, Zollikofer, & Mariotti, 2012; Villotte et al, 2010). In addition, body size has been identified as an issue where larger and heavier individuals have more developed entheses (Churchill & Morris, 1998; Godde et al, 2018; Niinimäki, 2011; Michopoulou et al, 2015; Weiss, Corona, & Schultz, 2010).…”