bioarch in UAE

8/7/2019 bioarch in UAE

1/8

Bioarchaeology in the United Arab Emirates*

IntroductionThere has been sustained archaeological interest inthe cultural centres of western Asia including Egypt,

Palestine, Syria, Mesopotamia and the Indus Valley,and emerging from this intense focus are hundredsof cases of pathologies from analyses of humanremains (1). Human remains and their associatedfunerary contexts have always captured the imagi-nations of both scientists and lay people, and reportsof disease, violence, disfigurement and racial typescan be easily found in the literature. Skeletal remainshave generally had a different trajectory than othermaterials retrieved from archaeological investiga-tion. Human remains tended to end up in thelaboratories of anatomists, physicians or physical

anthropologists. Historically, the approach to exam-ining these ancient humans was largely individual-

istic, descriptive and typological (2). But times arechanging, and with new theories, methods and databeing culled from human remains, there is renewed

excitement about their ability to tell stories far moreprovocative and important.For example, eastern Arabia has been considered

somewhat marginal to the larger cultural centres,and a comprehensive understanding of biologicaladaptation and human behaviour in this region hasbeen greatly understudied. Studies on the ArabianPeninsula and the Oman peninsula have demon-strated that these areas were much more central tothe ongoing affairs in Mesopotamia and beyondthan had been previously acknowledged (3).Archaeological reports on early domesticates, the

growth in societal complexity, interregional com-merce, the evolution of metallurgical and ceramictechnologies, the significance of foreign influences,and long-term climatic and environmental changesreveal this area to be central in understanding thelarger Near Eastern picture (4). Reports on humanremains from the Arabian Peninsula are relativelysparse, but this trend appears to be changing.

Why should archaeologists care about newlyemerging methods for the study of human remains?Here is one example of what an integrated skeletal

Physical anthropology and bioarchaeology (one of the newer interdisciplin-ary sub-disciplines) are alive and well in the U.A.E. Older analyticalapproaches that rely on subjective observations and non-systematic study ofhuman remains are being replaced with more biocultural and processualapproaches that integrate biological data from human remains within abroader archaeological and cultural context. With the publication of a majorsynthetic work based on analysis of the human remains from Jebel al-Buhais,a new era of skeletal analysis in the U.A.E. has been heralded. This shortreview examines the ways that skeletal analysis can be integrated withinbroader archaeological contexts.

Keywords: bioarchaeology, physical anthropology, burials, palaeopathol-ogy, U.A.E.

Debra L. MartinDept. of Anthropology andEthnic Studies, University ofNevada, Las Vegas, Nevada89154

e-mail: [email protected]

*Review article of Uerpmann H-P, Uerpmann M & Jasim SA,eds. The Archaeology of Jebel al-Buhais, Sharjah, United ArabEmirates, Volume One: Funeral Monuments and Human Remainsfrom Jebel al-Buhais. Sharjah: Department of Culture andInformation, in collaboration with the Institut fur Ur- andFruhgeschichte und Archaologie des Mittelalters UniversitatTubingen, Germany, and in cooperation with Kerns Verlag,Tubingen, Germany, 2006, 386 pp., 183 illustrations, 53 tables,2 appendices.

Arab. arch. epig. 2007: 18: 124131 (2007)

Printed in Singapore. All rights reserved

124


2/8

project could add to an ongoing archaeologicalproblem. A particularly pivotal period, the late thirdmillennium BC (c. 23002000 BC), was a time of

economic crises that had an effect on large portionsof the Near East including Mesopotamia and Egypt.Yet during this same time, at archaeological siteslocated in eastern Arabia, this was a period ofexpansion as demonstrated by the number of sites,graves, and settlements, and in the ceramic, stoneand metals industries represented (4). Cuneiformsources and import items suggest contact withMesopotamia and the Indus Valley throughout thistime. These exciting contradictions and complexitiesin human behaviour in the region underscore theneed to incorporate data derived from the human

remains so that questions of population structure,demography, diasporas, diet, health and sustain-ability can be compared across regions and throughtime.

This brief review examines the extraordinarypotential of human skeletal remains retrieved fromthe hundreds of collective and individual gravesexcavated since the late 1950s in the U.A.E. Physicalanthropologists and bioarchaeologists working in theU.A.E. have begun to reach a critical mass and withthis some impressive research findings have resulted.

Archaeologists in the region have posed importantresearch questions regarding subsistence patterns(including systems of water control, early domesti-cates, maritime and oasis adaptations), but it isstriking how little attention has been paid to health,diet, demography, population genetics, pathologyand other related issues. The inclusion of biologicaldata is a crucial step in integrating important aspectsof adaptation during times of rapid cultural, political,climate and economic changes. Yet, in the U.A.E. as inthe world over, human remains are often relegated toappendices and grey literature, rarely emerging as

an integrated part of the overall archaeologicalinvestigation.

Students interested in ancient human biologytoday are trained to utilize a broad range of theoryand method from a number of disciplines (such asarchaeology, anthropology, medicine and nutrition)so that data from skeletal remains is interpreted vis-a-vis other relevant factors that shed light on thediet, behaviour, culture and environment of thepeople under study. These integrative and syntheticstudies are often called biocultural since the biolog-

ical remains are merged with material cultureremains in order to reconstruct human behaviourand ideology. From this attempt at keeping the

human remains within their original archaeologicalcontext in the analysis and interpretation, bioar-chaeology has emerged as a set of methods to guidethe process.

Bioarchaeology represents a model for the integra-tion of human remains into a broader and morecohesive approach that draws on theory, method anddata from a number of sources (5). The approach aimsto move away from descriptive and typologicalstudies that analyze human remains without mucheffort at synthesizing the information with regard tothe complete archaeological context. This includes the

full range of archaeological data on taphonomy,funerary and grave context, stratigraphy, settlementpattern, artefact assemblages and floral and faunalreconstruction. Within this model, human remainsare understood within the broader perspective.Important aspects of the role of the environment inshaping human behaviour and adaptation, as well ashowwell cultural practicesareworking to sustain andgrow the population, become the focus.

Thus, bioarchaeology is part of the scientificprocess of understanding past peoples. For example,

hypotheses about adaptation to desert environ-ments, the effects of densely settled communitieson the rates of transmissible infectious diseases, andthe relationship between increased trade and pop-ulation growth on health can be tested with empir-ical data. Without the biological data on health anddisease, the effects of economic and political changeon population structure and community viabilitycannot be directly assessed.

Archaeologists working in the U.A.E. during thepast three decades have begun to understand theextraordinary potential of the human skeletal re-

mains. What follows is not by any means an exhaus-tive review of all studies on human skeletal remainsfrom the U.A.E. Rather, it highlights a recent publi-cation that demonstrates what systematic and inte-grated bioarchaeological studies can reveal.

Bioarchaeology in the U.A.E.: Jebel al-Buhais as amodel studyIn presenting an overview of the theory, method anddata from the recent analysis of the human remains

BIOARCHAEOLOGY IN THE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES

125


3/8

retrieved from a necropolis in Sharjah, U.A.E., it ishoped that the reader will gain an appreciation ofgood bioarchaeological analysis in general, and

more specifically for what is being achieved inbioarchaeology in the U.A.E. This important workpresents a model for future physical anthropologiststhat have the opportunity to carry out bioarchaeo-logical research in the U.A.E. What is most impor-tant is that the human remains from Jebel al-Buhaiswere recovered in varying states of preservation andcompleteness. In other words, this landmark studywas not based on well-preserved and intact skeletalremains. Yet, the authors do a great deal to furtherour understanding of both issues of biologicaladaptation as well as the diet, health, behaviour

and belief systems as revealed through the monu-ments built to house the dead and analysis of theremains within.

The site of Jebel al-Buhais is located in south-eastern Arabia in the Emirate of Sharjah. It wasexcavatedover thecourse of tenfield seasons between1996 and 2005. The locality of Jebel al-Buhais had beenusedasaplacetoburythedeadaswellastolive,fromapproximately 5000 to 200 BC. Exploration andexcavation within the area began in the late 1980s bya team of Spanish and French archaeologists. In 1994,

an intensive survey carried out by local specialistsrevealed a camel burial in a late Bronze Age grave. Byinvitation, Hans-Peter Uerpmann and MargaretheUerpmann arrived in 1995 and quickly discovered alarge Neolithic necropolis with at least 500 burials.Systematic excavations of the funerary monumentsand burials took place over the next ten years. Thedata generated from their teams work is of highquality, and can be used by future researchers to testhypotheses about a range of questions regarding thesite.

After a detailed description of the archaeological

sites of Jebel al-Buhais in the first section of thevolume (by Sabah Abboud Jasim), a second part, co-authored by Adelina Uerpmann, Johannes Schmitt,Nicole Nicklisch and Michaela Binder, provides anoverview of all of the post-Neolithic human remainsexcavated there between 1996 and 1999. Aspects ofhealth, diet and activity patterns are presented in thetemporal analysis of the collective assemblage.Patterns in dental decay and wear suggest a diet ofcereals, fruits, vegetables and some meat. Activitiesassociated with subsistence agriculture are revealed

in some of the long bones. Pronounced muscleinsertions and ridges demonstrate habitual use ofsome muscles likely used in food production. Raised

muscle ridges on the bones of the lower bodysuggest the possibility of camel riding and longdistance travel by foot over rough terrain.

Although speculative, the authors meticulouslyreconstruct the burial of two individuals buried withiron arrowheads (and one with a camel) that mayrepresent warriors. The interpretation goes on tosuggest the possibility that these warriors may havetaken part in battles related to the spread of Islam inthe region. These kinds of hypotheses laid out toaccount for the observed skeletal findings andmortuary configurations provide a lively way to

engage the reader in thinking about the implicationsof these post-Neolithic burials for understandinglarger patterns at the population level.

Taken together, these first two parts of the volumeprovide the reader with a really broad understand-ing of the archaeological context of the site at thelargest level. Methodological innovations have beenutilized to very good ends. The use of ortho-photographs in combination with GIS, for example,provides a permanent documentation of burials andgrave contexts. Measurements can later be taken

directly from the ortho-photographs. In addition,this methodology documents the exact positions ofburials vis-a-vis other burials. Semi-transparentphotos can later be superimposed over each torecreate the distribution and placement of burialswithin three-dimensional horizontal and verticalstratigraphy. These new methods both preserve dataas well as provide high-quality data that can be usedby future researchers.

In a third section of the volume there is a focusedstudy of all the Neolithic burials by Henrike Kiese-wetter. The focus is on the large population of

human remains coming from al-Buhais 18 (BHS 18),although the actual analysis is only on those remainsfrom the 19962000 field seasons (a later publicationwill incorporate the remaining recovered burialsfrom the 20012005 field seasons). The monumentsand human remains date largely to the fifth-millen-nium Neolithic period. It is suggested that there areat least 1000 or more burials in the whole area. Theexcavation team left approximately one fifth of theseunexcavated. Of those excavated, approximately 365are analyzed here.

D. L. MARTIN

126


4/8

BHS 18 holds the key to many questions regardingadaptation to a relatively dry and marginal area. Theseasonal pattern of herding, hunting, fishing and

foraging makes these Holocene pastoral nomadsparticularly important because so little is knownabout the full range of complex adaptations thatexisted prior to and contemporaneous with theadoption of agriculture in this and other regions.The necropolis in total covers 95 m2 and the burialsrecovered from BHS 18 are comprised of botharticulated and disarticulated unmarked graves.The method of interment is a mix of primary andsecondary burial. The secondary burials are com-prised largely of the cranium and long bonesarranged somewhat neatly throughout the burial

complex, suggesting that the corpses decomposedelsewhere and were brought to the burial complexwithout attending to relocating the complete skele-ton. Thus the secondary burials are missing smallerrib, vertebrae and hand and foot bones. There are nocut marks on the secondary burials, suggesting thatdecomposition was natural. Eleven out of the 374burials demonstrate burning. The coloration of theburn pattern suggests that the decomposed burialswere burned in situ once placed in the ground.

The techniques utilized by Kiesewetter represent

the very best in physical anthropology and bioar-chaeological methods. The human remains weretreated to a very systematic analysis using theinternational standards that have been forwardedby the Paleopathogy Association including the useof the Standard Osteological Database (SOD) proce-dures (7). In addition to this, the human remains,once transported to Germany for further study, wereboth radiographed and CT-scanned (which yieldedadditional important information on internal struc-ture and biological processes). Not only did theauthor collect a great deal of data from the burials

while they were still in situ, but she continued herstudy of the remains once they were recovered andtransported to her laboratory in Germany. Asinformation is often lost in the retrieval of fragilebones, it is a huge credit to the author to haveparticipated in the excavation and analysis of thebones from field to lab.

The age and sex distribution of the skeletonssuggests a relatively normally distributed popula-tion. Sub-adults represent a little under one third ofthe group, and of the adults about half of them are

between the ages of 20 and 35. The life-table analysesdemonstrate that the highest period of mortality foradults is between the ages of 25 and 29. The analysis

of death cohorts is very thorough and impressive,and yields several interesting points of departurefrom what might be expected for a Holocenepopulation. For example, the low number of infantsand sub-adults is noteworthy, along with the higherrisk of dying at peak reproductive years in adults.

It is hypothesized that the under-representation ofinfants and children is due to a variety of factorsincluding preservation issues and differential place-ment of infant burials elsewhere. The deliberateseparation of infants and young children from thegroup seems somewhat common in other regions as

well. The author also suggests one additional pos-sibility for the low number of infants in the burialgroup: that there actually might have been a verylow birth rate for these Bronze Age pastoralists.Using a range of comparative data, the author buildsan explanation for the low number of infantsrecovered from the site based on this. What isperhaps more intriguing and plausible is that infantswere generally buried elsewhere, except when theydied along with their mother. Some supporting dataexist for this because of the newborns and infants

recovered, most were found intermingled with theburials of adults, and in most cases with females.Regardless, Kiesewetter shows a wonderful imagi-nation and creativity in the way she pulls compar-ative ethnographic sources and other ideas into themix of alternative hypotheses that might account forthe results she obtained.

Using death rates to reconstruct the living popu-lation, the author suggests that the average size ofthe community might have been in the range of 50150 based on the calculations of the number ofpeople dying over a 500-year period. The crude birth

rate of 36.4 to 54.1 is comparable to an ethnograph-ically observed rate of 38.7 for historic and contem-porary Bedouin groups. Comparison of thedemographic profiles with RH5 (a fourth-millen-nium BC group from the coastal region on the Gulfof Oman) revealed some similarities with lownumbers of neonates and infants, and differencesin the higher than expected rate of mortality in theyoung adulthood age categories.

Metric analyses were undertaken of the longbones of the upper and lower body for adult males


127


5/8

and females in order to detect variability in overallsize and shape. In general, the empirical datasuggest a population that is relatively muscular,

but not robust. The author suggests that one sees thissimilar body physique even today. She explains thatthe local environment may be a strong factorshaping overall physique. For the upper body, thereare distinctive patterns of use of the upper arm(deltoid) and chest (pectoral) muscles. The right sideappears more developed than the left, suggesting adominance of right-handed people. The authorsuggests that the pattern of muscularity is bestdescribed by activities where the upper arm is liftedand moved in a circular motion. She then describeshunting and warfare activities that most fit this

pattern even though the faunal record does notshow much hunting activity. Alternative (and plau-sible) hypotheses would support activities such asprocessing hides, carrying children and balancingand carrying heavy loads.

For the lower limbs, mobility was a strong factorin patterning the shape of the femur bones.Although they are not extremely robust or markedwith defined muscle attachments and ridges, theauthor found a high pilasteric and low platymericindex (i.e. the femora are more flattened than

rounded). These suggest physical strain on thelower body consistent with constant mobility. Whencomparing these data and other metric observationsfrom published reviews of other prehistoric, historicand living populations throughout Europe, Africaand America, the indices place Al-Buhais 18 nearestto modern Arabs and Egyptians (but not to Africansin general), and farther from European and NativeAmerican. In terms of overall stature, males aregenerally taller than females (means of 170.8 versus159.7, respectively). These data are remarkablysimilar for comparative groups and suggests that

these nomads are typical in terms of overall size andthe amount of sexual dimorphism.

Cranial metric and non-metric analyses revealedthat there is a tendency towards apparent geneticrelatedness to other Mediterranean groups (more sothan for African or Asian groups). However, withalmost all of the cranial measures and traits, therewas quite a bit of variability. Kiesewetter focuses ona patterned observation that there were at least twotypes of cranial shape, long-headed and round-headed, combined with individuals showing inter-

mediate forms. The author suggests that it ispossible that there might have been sub-tribesusing the same burial grounds, but the plotting of

head types within the graveyard revealed no dis-tinction and placement of all head types appearedmixed and random. Because none of the othermeasures of biological difference correlated to headshape, it was concluded that these groups were notbiologically separated in any way. Although theauthor takes great care in attempting to distinguishsubgroups based on long-headed and round-headedindividuals, in the end it was concluded that no suchgroups could be made and that there simply wasphenotypic variability in head form in this popula-tion. The collective data on the cranium, when

compared with published data from other popula-tions, does suggest strongly that this population wasnot a genetically isolated and homogenous popula-tion. The author writes [] the society probablywas made up of individuals from a scatterednomadic population, who were held together bysocial, economic and cultural ties and who season-ally met at the BHS 18 site (p. 170). Indeed, theepigenetic traits continued to reinforce the idea thatthe two groups based on head shape were likely notdiscrete groups at all, but rather there was a []

substantial genetic exchange between the sub-groups, which is underscored by the variety oftraits (p. 172).

Trauma is found to occur with the highestfrequency in the cranium with 13.9% of the indi-viduals aged over 15 showing blunt force, sharpforce or small puncture fractures. About one third ofthe fractures are healed, and the others present someor no healing and are likely to have contributed tothe cause of death. The author presents detailed casestudies for four of the individuals with head trauma.In these, the trauma is described, a reconstruction of

the traumatic event is attempted, the outcome of thetrauma for health is explored, and treatment (if any)is postulated. In general, the head wounds areinterpreted to have been the result of being hit onthe head with various implements, from stoneimplements to poles and sticks. What is interestingis that several females have healed and unhealedhead trauma as well, although the majority of thecases are on males.

The postcranial data show that there were fewerpost-cranial fractures, with twelve long bones

D. L. MARTIN

128


6/8

(eleven individuals) showing evidence of healedfractures. The author demonstrates that the place-ment and severity of these suggest violence and not

accidental falls. The author concludes that Interper-sonal violence was frequent, deliberate, and oftenfatal in the BHS 18 population (p. 189). The authoruses the vast literature on trauma and violence toexplore creatively the BHS 18 evidence for traumaby age, sex, placement and degree of bony involve-ment. All signs point to aggressive violence fromoutside the group. The greater involvement ofmales, the fatality rate, and the fact that childrenwere not targets of violence suggest to the authorthat the violence was from inter-group conflict andnot intra-group fighting.

The first three cases of reported trepanation in theU.A.E. and the earliest cases in the broader regionare among the more provocative findings. Thepresentation of the trepanations is greatly enhancedby the use of CT-scans and three-dimensionalreconstructions of the crania. There is no doubt thatthese individuals have had surgical intervention andthat two of the individuals survived the surgerywith complete healing. What is provocative is thatthese were found on one male and two females. Intwo cases, the surgery was associated with cranial

trauma. Most literature on trepanations shows apreponderance of males undergoing the surgery.The author does an impressive job of collating all theavailable data on trepanations in the Old World.What the cases from BHS 18 reveal is an extraordi-nary knowledge of anatomy and physiology, preciseand careful use of flint blades, medical knowledgeregarding cause-effect relationships, an appreciationof life-saving interventions and careful post-surgerytreatment. Kiesewetter convincingly argues thattrepanation at BHS 18 was used as a medicalintervention to save lives and not for magico-

religious purposes.A careful reading of the combined results on

osteoarthritis and joint deterioration, infectiousdiseases and nutritional problems demonstratesthat there were relatively low frequencies on allaccounts. Although there are cases of activeinfectious disease at the time of death, some ofthese are related to other injuries, some are slightand benign in appearance, and a few suggestsystemic infectious disease leading to death. Takentogether, these data suggest much lower rates than

generally reported for sedentary agriculturalgroups, and are consistent with frequencies re-ported for other mobile nomads. Dental patholo-

gies were likewise considerably lower in frequencythan agriculturalists, including dental caries. Ofinterest here is that there is no evidence for theconsumption of dates, a highly cariogenic foodused heavily by the fourth- and third-millenniumpopulations in the region.

The palaeo-pathological data relating to diet andnutrition strongly suggest that these nomadic herd-ers were doing quite well. The relative absence orlow rates of a number of indicators of nutritionalinadequacy suggest that the reliance on sheep, goatand cattle combined with some plant and fruit

locally available, was sufficiently nutritious to keepthe populace generally healthy. These data and thisconclusion are at odds with the early introductorystatements by Kiesewetter suggesting that this was ahostile and impoverished environment to adapt to.The data suggests the opposite. Future bioarchaeol-ogists may want to investigate further this ideathrough an examination of the ways that theseNeolithic people did adapt to their specific localityin terms of behaviour, movement, resource manage-ment, time allocation by tasks, belief systems, tool

and artefact production, trade and other factorsplaying into their successful lifestyle during thisperiod.

The interpretation of trauma and violence isquite compelling. It is assumed, based on settle-ment patterns and lack of architecture at the burialsite, that the group migrated seasonally to otherplaces as vegetation for the herds became moreabundant in some places than in others. Theauthor suggests that there could have been com-petition issues with using various resources suchas grazing areas, and violent attacks on the groups

could have been staged by other nomadic groupshoping to gain access to these limited resources.Thus, territorial defence and small-scale warfaremay have become increasingly used as tacticsduring periods of food scarcity, population in-crease or any number of factors coming together toincrease conflict between groups.

Taken as a whole, this volume is a valuablecontribution to the literature for both archaeologistsand physical anthropologists. It demonstrates cate-gorically the potential for skeletal analysis to pro-


129


7/8

vide unique empirical data on a range of importanthuman dimensions such as diet, health, longevity,migration and biological affinity. The skeletal anal-

yses are of the highest quality, using cutting-edgemethods and theory to gather an enormous wealthof data on the individuals who lived and died in theregion. Collectively, the presentation of the excava-tion and analysis of the data clearly demonstratesthe continuous use of the region over thousands ofyears. New insights into the adaptive strategies ofthe inhabitants of the region have been provided,and the more provocative findings regarding vio-lence and surgical interventions open up newavenues of inquiry regarding the complexities andideologies across the millennium. New and higher

standards have been set for physical anthropology inthe region and beyond. Using state-of-the art meth-odologies and well-documented techniques for anal-ysis, the presentation of the skeletal data raises thebar for how physical anthropology and bioarchae-ology should be carried out.

This volume should be required reading for allphysical anthropologists or bioarchaeologists whowish to work in the U.A.E. and other parts of theworld. It provides a model for systematic analysesof funerary monuments, mortuary behaviour and

human remains. In addition, the data provided onBHS 18 should be read widely and promotedwithin other scientific arenas. The findings byKiesewetter can be used in current debates on thepotential effects of climate change on humans. InBHS 18 we are provided with some wonderfulexamples of biocultural adaptation in what wouldbe considered by most to be a hostile andmarginalized environment. Mobility, flexibility,small population size, seasonal utilization ofresources, and a varied diet kept these nomadicpopulations relatively healthy and long-lived over

many generations. There are lessons to be learnedhere that climate change planners and activistsshould make use of.

The key to good bioarchaeological analyses is toprovide enough detail in the data presentation topermit others to reanalyse and reinterpret the data ifthey wish. Although the authors come up withmany interesting ideas about how to interpret theirfindings, readers are provided with a wealth of detailso that they might suggest alternative hypothesesand other ways of thinking about the data.

Integration of older studies with new paradigmsOther large-scale skeletal studies from the U.A.E.also exist and these have produced equally pro-

vocative and important findings regarding humanlife-ways in the U.A.E. For example, Kunter (7)reported on the third-millennium human skeletalremains from the graves of Umm an-Nar, AbuDhabi, U.A.E. Although this report is much moredescriptive and less systematic, it is still veryuseful and some of the data can be reinterpretedusing newer models for understanding adaptation.For example, the size of several of the Umm an-Nar graves suggests that there was status differ-entiation within the community. The proportion ofinfants (03 yrs) amounts to 18% of the total

population. For the period one would expect aconsiderably higher mortality rate. It is possiblethat only a portion of the deceased children wereactually interred in the graves, or that the numberof families with children was low in the popula-tion as a whole. These are intriguing findings thatneed to be more fully explored, given new ideasabout that period.

Another finding by Kunter was that there wereapproximately twice as many males as females inthe burials. These data led to some observations

regarding the fact that the settlement at Umm an-Nar was likely a sort of trade colony that was inclose contact with the settlements of the interior andin which males (fishermen, metal workers, traders,sailors) were predominant.

In this report, Kunter goes on to provide data onage at death (individuals lived into their 50s),muscularity and stature. Pathologies were found tobe largely absent, suggesting a relatively healthypopulation. Some injuries were observed that weresuggestive of parry fractures (breaks in the lowerarm bones as a result of holding up the arms to ward

off a blow). In examination of osteoarthritic changes,Kunter presented data that suggested habitual use ofthe hands and arms.

This relatively early report utilized the researchstrategy of the day, which was largely based onmeasurements and observations. This study pre-dates the use of standards in the field, and so verylittle information about the methods of analysis isprovided. This greatly limits how these data can beused in a directly comparative way. Yet, reportssuch as this often have raw data presented in tables

D. L. MARTIN

130


8/8

and charts that can be culled and re-examined usingnewer techniques.

Relevance of bioarchaeology for the U.A.E. todayBioarchaeological studies are emerging that showgood use of modern methods for analysis andinterpretation of human remains. More particularis-tic studies from sites such as Tell Abraq (8,9) andRas al-Humra (10) are leading the way in showinghow to use very focused studies of a single aspect ofskeletal biology (using teeth or the elbow complex orthe foot) to extract precise data on the activitiescarried out by local peoples. These focused studies,in conjunction with the larger systematic popula-

tion-level studies have the potential to provideempirical data on the survival patterns of the earlyinhabitants of the U.A.E.

But there is larger relevance and a more urgentreason to explore human adaptation in places such aseastern Arabia. Everyone is talking about climatechange these days. Human life in extreme andmarginal environments, especially those with limitedwater supplies, is a finely balanced system that can bedisrupted easily by very small departures fromaverage conditions, either in the short term (e.g.

following prolonged drought) or the long term (e.g. asa result of underlying global trends). Currently,debates about climate change are primarily focusedon the adequacy of predictive tools to assess accu-

rately causes, rates and effects of climate change onecosystems. However, the human dimension of aridenvironments, droughts and climate change, especially

in terms of resources, sustainability, and culturalsystems, is only beginning to be seriously discussed.

Archaeological and anthropological understand-ings regarding the ability of humans to adapt to andlive in regions that have undergone thousands ofyears of climate change provides an evolutionaryperspective on the limits of human adaptability andresource management. Archaeologists are perhapsthe only scientists who can provide integrated andmultidimensional data sets on both the successesand failures of humans in marginalized and hostileenvironments. Bioarchaeologists (physical anthro-

pologists with training in both analysis of skeletalremains and in archaeology and taphonomy) may beparticularly well suited to contribute a great deal ofinformation on the human limitations of survivinglong-term droughts and climate change.

Bioarchaeological data from ancient desert dwell-ers offers a wealth of important empirical data onhow humans have adapted for over 5000 years toshifting climatic and environmental changes.Archaeological and physical anthropological workssuch as this underscore the relevance of these kinds

of data sets to todays debates. It is hoped that withthe coming global warming, a larger readership (i.e.beyond archaeology and anthropology) will findlessons from the past that are relevant for our future.

References1. Ortner DJ. Identification of Pathological

Conditions in Human Skeletal Remains.New York: Academic Press, 2003: 179606.

2. Armelagos GJ. Paleopathology. In:

Spencer F, ed. History of PhysicalAnthropology. New York: Garland,1997: 790796.

3. Potts DT. The Arabian Gulf in Antiquity.Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1: 1990: 62394.

4. Potts, DT. The Late Prehistoric, Proto-historic and Early Historic Periods inEastern Arabia (ca. 50001200 B.C.).Journal of World Prehistory 7/2: 1993:163212.

5. Larsen CS. Bioarchaeology: InterpretingBehaviour from the Human Skeleton.

Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, 1997: 45.

6. Buikstra JE & Ubelaker DH, eds. Stan-dards for Data Collection from HumanSkeletal Remains. Fayetteville: Arkansas

Archaeological Survey Research Series,44: 1994: 14.7. Kunter M. Die Menschlichen Skelet-

treste aus den Graben von Umm an-Nar, Abu Dhabi, U.A.E. In: Frifelt K.The island of Umm an-Nar. Vol. 1. Thirdmillennium graves. Aarhus: JASP, 26/1:1991: 163179.

8. Blau S. Limited yet Informative: Path-ological Alterations Observed on Hu-man Skeletal remains from Third andSecond Millennia BC Collective Burialsin the United Arab Emirates. Interna-

tional Journal of Osteoarchaeology 11:2001: 173205.

9. Cope JM, Berryman AC, Martin DL &Potts DT. Robusticity and Osteoar-thritis at the Trapeziometacarpal Joint

in a Bronze Age Population from TellAbraq, U.A.E. American Journal ofPhysical Anthropology 126: 2006: 391400.

10. Coppa A, Damadio SM, Armelagos GJ,Mancinelli D & Varbiu R. Paleobiologyand Paleopathology: A PreliminaryStudy of the Prehistoric Fish EatingPopulation of Ras al-Hamra 5. Antrop-ologia Contemporanea 13/4: 1990: 329336.


131

bioarch in UAE

Documents

Transcript of bioarch in UAE