Moving from the Canary in the Coalmine

Littleton, Judith

doi:10.1002/9781444390537.ch13

Cited by 9 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One clear advantage of focusing on subadults is that age at death is more accurately and precisely determined. Thus, it is possible to examine with greater precision the age-structure of skeletal lesions in children as a means of exploring heterogeneous frailty (Bennike et al 2005;Littleton 2011).…”

Section: Subadults As Non-survivorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some studies have found evidence consistent with expectations based on ''conventional wisdom.'' This includes relatively high frequencies of skeletal lesions at the youngest subadult ages (Perry 2014), or higher frequencies of skeletal signs of acute stress at younger ages but more evidence of recovery from growth restriction at older ages (Littleton 2011;Robbins Schug 2011). Similarly, several studies of tooth crown size have found smaller permanent teeth in subadults compared to adults in the same assemblages (Guagliardo 1982;Stojanowski et al 2007).…”

Section: Subadults As Non-survivorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Osteological Paradox 20 Years Later: Past Perspectives, Future Directions

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

More than 20 years ago, Wood et al. (Curr Anthropol 33:343-370, 1992) published ''The Osteological Paradox: Problems of Inferring Prehistoric Health from Skeletal Samples,'' in which they challenged bioarchaeologists to consider the effects of heterogeneous frailty and selective mortality on health inferences in past populations. Here, we review the paper's impact on bioarchaeology and paleopathology, focusing on recent advancements in studies of ancient health. We find the paper is often cited but infrequently engaged in a meaningful way. Despite an initial decade of limited progress, numerous researchers are now addressing components of the Paradox in more informed ways. We identify four areas of fruitful research: (1) intrasite, contextual perspectives, (2) subadults, (3) associating stress markers with demographic phenomena, and (4) skeletal lesion-formation processes. Although often seen as a problematic assumption, understanding the sources of heterogeneous frailty within human populations is a worthy research question in and of itself, and one that clearly links past and present health research within a global framework.

show abstract

Section: Subadults As Non-survivorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Subadults As Non-survivorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Osteological Paradox 20 Years Later: Past Perspectives, Future Directions

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Contemporary studies continue to clarify the interpretation of skeletal stress indicators in relation to risk of death in distinct age cohorts, such as preadults versus surviving adolescent or adult cohorts. While early studies such as that by Saunders and Hoppa (1993) suggested there was no association with indicators of stress (specifically, stunted growth) and risk of death, more recent research supports the relationship of stress indicators and increased risk of death, and demonstrates high frequencies of stress lesions in the very youngest age groups and recovery from stress in older cohorts (Littleton 2011;Perry 2014;Robbins Schug 2011). In particular, new studies highlight relationships between stress indicators and mortality, with influences from factors such as gender or status (Vercellotti et al 2014) or early diet (weaning) patterns (for a recent review see Tsutaya and Yoneda 2015).…”

Section: Contemporary Directionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stronger Together: Advancing a Global Bioarchaeology

Baker

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bioarchaeology is a burgeoning, integrative field that spans the globe. Bioarchaeology is often thought to encompass the study of only the human remains found within archaeological sites, frequently divorced from the contexts in which they were found. The physical remains of people store a record of their biological attributes, providing information on illnesses or trauma they survived or that may have contributed to their deaths, their daily activities, biological affinities, and more. Equally informative are the different ways that people were treated in death by those who survived them. Rather than investigating only the biological remains or studying material culture alone, integrating these components permits a more complete understanding of how people experienced an array of circumstances over the course of their own lives and through multiple generations. Differing subsistence practices, access to resources, exposure to hazards, and changes in economic, political, religious, or environmental factors over time and across vast areas of the world are topics explored by bioarchaeologists. Learning how past peoples were affected by pathogens, climate change, and immigration, for example, provides insight into contemporary issues and ABSTRACTBioarchaeology is a relatively young field that aims to improve our understanding of life, death, and interrelationships among past humans around the globe. The discipline grew out of 1960s American processual archaeology and biological anthropology and emerged as human osteoarchaeology in the UK. Today, bioarchaeology is a vibrant, interdisciplinary field of study that cross-cuts biological anthropology, archaeology, and social theory to situate past peoples within their biological, cultural, and environmental circumstances. The field emphasizes not only the study of human remains but the integrative analysis and interpretation of their context, including the archaeological, sociocultural, and political milieu and the environmental setting in which people lived. The growing interest in bio archae ol o gi cal research has created the need for a new peer-reviewed journal to help unify and advance this discipline around the globe. In this introduction to Bioarchaeology International, we trace the origins of the field and the different "schools" of bioarchaeology that have developed and are now merging as the discipline has matured. We then delineate the purpose and goals of the journal, highlighting how the articles in the first issue contribute to those goals. Finally, as co-editors in chief, we describe our vision for contemporary and future directions in bioarchaeology. With this overview of the field and journal, we wish to stimulate discussion and promote international submissions. We intend for Bioarchaeology International to strengthen this growing field and help promote scholarly and public interest in our collective research.Keywords: archaeology; biological anthropology; biocultural; funerary archaeology; mortuary behavior; osteology; osteoarchaeology; paleopatholo...

show abstract

“…These data can then be analyzed within a careful consideration of climatic and environmental change over time. Using the example of tracing the impact of malaria in Bahrain (an emergent piece of research), evidence of comorbidity over time is established (e.g., Littleton 1998Littleton , 2011, but that needs to be tied to stronger dence for malaria (including the type of malaria from paleogenomics) and human and animal migration. Stable isotopes are providing much of the evidence for husbandry and how that varies over time and by place Littleton 2019, 2021) as well as revealing the complexity of human migration in Bahrain.…”

Section: Adopting a One Health Perspectivementioning

confidence: 99%

Human-Animal Interactions and Infectious Disease

Littleton

Karstens

Busse

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Zoonoses are significant in human histories, and in histories of other species and the environment. Diseases have been an important evolutionary force, not just the major epidemics but the quieter endemic diseases. These infectious diseases comprise complex events and cycles involving multiple actors (humans, animals, and microorganisms). Despite difficulties of preservation, identification, and interpretation, bioarchaeologists have often analyzed zoonotic diseases. However, these studies have tended to focus on an individual disease and its emergence as opposed to the human-animal interactions and complex environmental cycles that underlie zoonotic disease more broadly. In this paper, after a brief review of zoonotic disease and bioarchaeological studies of it, we provide three contemporary case studies that point to the complexity of human-animal interaction and the socioecological circumstances involved in disease. We argue that adopting a One Health framework, which is based on Rudolf Virchow’s insight as well as approaches that emphasize time depth, multiple analytical scales, evolutionary understandings, and a consideration of human ideas and not just practices, would contribute to making bioarchaeology relevant to contemporary and future issues beyond the epidemiological transition model as modified by Barrett and Armelagos (Barrett et al. 1998; Barrett and Armelagos 2013). Les zoonoses sont importantes dans l’histoire humaine, et en gros dans l’histoire d’autres espèces et de l’environnement. Les maladies ont été une force évolutive importante, non seulement les épidémies majeures, mais aussi les maladies endémiques les plus calmes. Ces maladies infectieuses comprennent des événements et des cycles complexes impliquant de multiples acteurs (humains, animaux et micro-organismes). Malgré les difficultés de préservation, d’identification et d’interprétation, les bioarchéologues ont souvent analysé les zoonoses. Cependant, ces études ont eu tendance à se concentrer sur la maladie individuelle et son émergence par opposition aux interactions homme-animal et aux cycles environnementaux complexes qui sous-tendent la maladie zoonotique de manière plus générale. Dans cet article, après un bref examen de la maladie zoonotique et des études bioarchéologiques de celle-ci, nous fournissons trois études de cas contemporaines qui soulignent la complexité de l’interaction homme-animal et les circonstances socio-écologiques impliquées dans la maladie. Nous soutenons que l’adoption d’un cadre One Health basé sur la vision de Rudolf Virchow ainsi que sur des approches mettant l’accent sur la profondeur temps, les échelles analytiques multiples, les compréhensions évolutives et la prise en compte des idées humaines et non seulement des pratiques, contribuera à rendre la bioarchéologie pertinente pour les problèmes contemporains et futurs au-delà le modèle de transition épidémiologique tel que modifié par Barrett et Armelagos (Barrett et al. 1998; Barrett et Armelagos 2013).

show abstract

Moving from the Canary in the Coalmine

Cited by 9 publications

References 52 publications

The Osteological Paradox 20 Years Later: Past Perspectives, Future Directions

The Osteological Paradox 20 Years Later: Past Perspectives, Future Directions

Stronger Together: Advancing a Global Bioarchaeology

Human-Animal Interactions and Infectious Disease

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About