Health status among prehistoric Eskimos from Point Hope, Alaska

Abstract

Using the protocol outlined in The Backbone of History: Health and Nutrition in the Western Hemisphere (BBH) (Steckel and Rose. 2002a. The backbone of history: health and nutrition in the Western Hemisphere. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), this project compares the Mark I Health Index (MIHI) scores of the Ipiutak (n = 76; 100BCE-500CE) and Tigara (n = 298; 1200-1700CE), two samples of North American Arctic Eskimos excavated from Point Hope, Alaska. Macroscopic examination of skeletal remains for evidence of anemia, linear enamel hypoplasias (LEH), infection, trauma, dental health, and degenerative joint disease (DJD) was conducted to assess differences in health status resulting from a major economic shift at Point Hope. These data demonstrate that despite differences in settlement pattern, economic system, and dietary composition, the MIHI scores for the Ipiutak (82.1) and Tigara (84.6) are essentially equal. However, their component scores differ considerably. The Ipiutak component scores are suggestive of increased prevalence of chronic metabolic and biomechanical stresses, represented by high prevalence of nonspecific infection and high frequencies of DJD in the hip/knee, thoracic vertebrae, and wrists. The Tigara experienced more acute stress, evidenced by higher prevalence of LEH and trauma. Comparison of overall health index scores with those published in BBH shows the MIHI score for the Ipiutak and Tigara falling just above the average for sites in the Western Hemisphere, adding support to the argument that the human capacity for cultural amelioration of environmental hardships is quite significant.

Aging methods and age‐at‐death distributions: Does transition analysis call for a re‐examination of bioarchaeological data?

“…The average Δ age (16.44 years) was high enough to require thoughtful consideration when choosing an age estimation method and drawing conclusions based on those estimations. Bioarchaeologists often divide skeletal samples into age cohorts of 10–15 years (e.g., Lieverse, Weber, Ivanovich Bazaliiskiy, Ivanova Goriunova, & Aleksandrovich Savel'ev, , Berbesque & Doran, , Rojas‐Sepúlveda, Ardagna, & Dutour, , Šlaus, , Klaus, Larsen, & Tam, , Klaus & Tam, , Scott & Buckley, , Dabbs, , DeWitte & Bekvalac, , Novak & Šlaus, , DeWitte, , Woo & Sciulli, , Da‐Gloria & Larsen, , Griffin, , Marklein, Leahy, & Crews, , Krakowka, , Ostendorf Smith, Kurtenbach, & Vermaat, , Trautmann, Wißing, Díaz‐Zortia Bonilla, Bis‐Worch, & Bocherens, , Geber & Murphy, , Hubbe, Green, Cheverko, & Neves, , Milella, Betz, Knüsel, Larsen, & Dori, , Yaussy & DeWitte, ), and under these conditions, a difference of 16.44 years is enough to move an individual into a different category entirely. There is also considerable variation around the mean Δ age (standard deviation = 11.97), showing that comparing the two methods is not only a matter of correcting them by adding or subtracting a constant.…”

“…However, as mentioned in the previous section, the median age-at-death for ML estimates was lower than the median age-at-death for the traditional methods, meaning that in our case the differences are not only the results of the increase in the number of older adults when transition analysis is applied. Because the most well-represented site in the sample is the Grantham site, it is possible that this unexpected finding is a consequence of high young adult mortality risk during an intense con- & Aleksandrovich Savel'ev, 2007, Berbesque & Doran, 2008, Rojas-Sepúlveda, Ardagna, & Dutour, 2008, Šlaus, 2008, Klaus, Larsen, & Tam, 2009, Scott & Buckley, 2010, Dabbs, 2011, DeWitte & Bekvalac, 2011, Novak & Šlaus, 2011, DeWitte, 2012, Woo & Sciulli, 2013, Da-Gloria & Larsen, 2014, Griffin, 2014, Marklein, Leahy, & Crews, 2016, Krakowka, 2017, Ostendorf Smith, Kurtenbach, & Vermaat, 2016 and that the population included very few older adults (Woo & Sciulli, 2013), a conclusion that would be significantly revised if the ages at death were estimated using transition analysis. This movement of individuals into different age categories depending on the aging method chosen is problematic in this case because it would be expected that older age categories would exhibit the greatest prevalence of DJD.…”

Extirpolation of the Mythology that Porotic Hyperostosis is Caused by Iron Deficiency Secondary to Dietary Shift to Maize

“…Unfortunately, promulgation of the mythology has persisted, compromising anthropologic analyses for more than a decade. Despite this evidence, editors of major journals (e.g., American Journal of Physical Anthropology and the International Journal of Osteoarchaeology) have continued to publish articles predicated upon that erroneous premise (Dabbs, 2011;de la Cova, 2011;Meyer et al, 2011). Acceptance of those publications was based on the erroneous authoritative notion that presence of porotic hyperostosis identifies primary iron deficiency produced by maize ingestion, as repeatedly suggested by Buikstra (Wilbur et al, 2008) and others (Angel, 1978;Hill & Armelagos, 1990;Scherer et al, 2007;Stuart-Macadam & Kent, 1992;Wright & Chew, 1999).…”

“…Lockyer et al (2011) noted the difficulty weaning anthropologists away from this mythology. The current exposé should finally convince (assuming they pursue an intellectually honest review of the data) those still clinging to the mythology that porotic hyperostosis can be used as a measure of broad biologic processes like population migration and diffusion of genes, origin of agriculture and the relationship between economic transition and evolutionary processes, in addition to defining the health of populations (Angel, 1966;Bishop, 2011;Dabbs, 2011;De la Cova, 2011;El-Najjar et al, 1975;Lewis, 2011;Mensforth et al, 1978;Meyer et al, 2011;Scherer et al, 2007;Wilbur et al, 2008;Wright & Chew, 1999).…”

Enfermedad Articular Degenerativa Y Cambios Entesiales en Seis Colecciones Óseas Prehispánicas Del Noroccidente De América Del Sur

“…La paleoepidemiología de la EAD ha sido estudiada en varias colecciones óseas de Norteamérica (Bourke 1967;Bridges 1991Bridges , 1992Dabbs 2011;Jurmain 1977, 1980, 1990, Jurmain y Kilgore 1995Ortner 1968;Walker y Hollimon 1989;Watkins 2012;Woo y Sciulli 2011), Europa (Berato et al 1990;Crubézy et al 2002;Molnar et al 2011;Rogers y Dieppe 1994;Rogers et al 1997;H. Waldron 1991H.…”