Accounting for multiple effects and the problem of small sample sizes in osteology: a case study focussing on entheseal changes
- 335 Downloads
Osteoarchaeological studies provide valuable information concerning living conditions and life course changes in past societies. However, many skeletal markers, such as entheseal changes, are multifactorial in aetiology; thus, their interpretation is not straightforward. Generalised linear models (GLMs) are ideal for analysing such phenomena, i.e. those with multiple underlying causative factors, but, to date, their use has been limited. This paper focuses attention on using these models to test hypotheses regarding the aetiology of entheseal changes, widely regarded as indicative of activity patterns, but which are also affected by ageing and body size. To demonstrate the use and limitations of these models, this paper provides an independent test of a previously developed GLM on an identified skeletal sample comprised of skeletons from four British sites (n = 58) which has a typical sample size for archaeological osteological analysis. In addition to this model, GLMs were developed to include the factor of body size and expand the models to test individual entheses, as well as joint complexes whereby multiple entheses for muscles which act synergistically have been pooled. The results indicate that the original model did not compare well with the frequencies of entheseal changes found in the British assemblage under study. The new models found no clear pattern of influence, although both ageing and body size were important for some entheses. GLMs are appropriate for testing the interaction of biological variables, but future studies need to take into account and test their applicability to archaeological sample sizes.
KeywordsActivity-related stress markers Musculoskeletal stress markers (MSM) Generalised linear models Identified skeletal collections
The authors would like to thank the reviewers for their helpful comments.
The first author would like to thank the Museum of London and St. Bride’s Church Fleet Street for access to the skeletal collections in London, with particular thanks to Jelena Bekvalac and Dr Rebecca Redfern. The first author would also like to extend their thanks to Malin Holst of York Osteoarchaeology Ltd, John Buglass of John Buglass Archaeological Services, Washburn Heritage Centre and Fewston and Blubberhouses Parochial Church Council who have granted access to the skeletons. The Fenwick Human Osteology Laboratory, Department of Archaeology, Durham University, provided workspace and access to this collection. CH’s contribution to this research was funded by Portuguese national funds through Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT), the Foundation for Science and Technology postdoctoral grant SFRH/BPD/82559/2011 and their funding for the research centre of CIAS—Research Centre for Anthropology and Health (FCT/PEst-OE/SADG/UI0283/2013). FCT is supported by Programa Operacional Potencial Humano/Quadro de Referência Estratégico Nacional (POHP/QREN) co-funded by the Portuguese Government and the European Social Fund of the European Union.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Alves Cardoso F, Henderson CY (2010) Enthesopathy formation in the humerus: data from known age-at-death and known occupation skeletal collections. Am J Phys Anthropol 141:550–560Google Scholar
- Buikstra JE, Ubelaker DH (1994) Standards for data collection from human skeletal remains. Arkansas Archeological Survey Research Series. Arkansas Archeological Survey, FayettevilleGoogle Scholar
- Caffell A, Holst M (2010) Osteological analysis the church of St Michael and St Lawrence, Fewston, North Yorkshire. York Osteoarchaeology Ltd., York. doi: 10.5284/1025701
- Cardoso FA (2008) A portrait of gender in two 19th and 20th century Portuguese populations: a palaeopathological perspective. Doctoral thesis, Durham UniversityGoogle Scholar
- Cowie R, Bekvalac J, Kausmally T (2008) Late 17th to 19th century burial and earlier occupation at All Saints, Chelsea Old Church, Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. Museum of London Archaeology Services, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Henderson CY (2008) When hard work is disease: the interpretation of enthesopathies. In: Brickley, M., Smith, M. (eds.) Proceedings of the eighth annual conference of the British Association for Biological Anthropology and Osteoarchaeology. British Archaeological Reports, International Series, Oxford, pp. 17-25Google Scholar
- Henderson CY (2009) Musculo-skeletal stress markers in bioarchaeology: indicators of activity levels or human variation. Doctoral thesis, Durham University, DurhamGoogle Scholar
- Kuorinka I, Forcier L (1995) Work related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs): a reference book for prevention. Taylor and Francis, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Miles A, White W, Tankard D (2008) Burial at the site of the parish church of St Benet Sherehog before and after the Great Fire. Excavations at 1 Poultry, City of London. Museum of London Archaeological Service Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Molenberghs G (2010) Generalized estimating equations notes on the choice of the working correlation matrix. Method Inf Med 49:419–420Google Scholar
- Scheuer JL, Bowman JE (1995) Correlation of documentary and skeletal evidence in the St. Bride’s crypt population. In: Saunders SR, Herring A (eds) Grave reflections: portraying the past through cemetery studies. Canadian Scholars’ Press Inc, Toronto, pp 49–70Google Scholar
- Villotte S (2006) Connaissances médicales actuelles, cotation des enthésopathies: nouvelle méthode. Bull Mém Soc Anthropol Paris 18:65–85Google Scholar
- Villotte S (2008) Enthésopathies et Activités des Hommes Préhistoriques-Recherche Méthodologique et Application aux Fossiles Européens du Paléolithique Supérieur et du Mésolithique. Doctoral thesis. Université Sciences et Technologies-Bordeaux IGoogle Scholar
- Villotte S, Castex D, Couallier V, Dutour O, Knüsel CJ, Henry-Gambier D (2010) Enthesopathies as occupational stress markers: evidence from the upper limb. Am J Phys Anthropol 142:224–234Google Scholar