Advertisement

Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences

, Volume 8, Issue 4, pp 805–817 | Cite as

Accounting for multiple effects and the problem of small sample sizes in osteology: a case study focussing on entheseal changes

  • C. Y. HendersonEmail author
  • E. Nikita
Original Paper

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Activity-related stress markers Musculoskeletal stress markers (MSM) Generalised linear models Identified skeletal collections 

Notes

Acknowledgments

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.

References

  1. Agresti A (2002) Categorical data analysis. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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
  3. Alves Cardoso F, Henderson CY (2013) The categorisation of occupation in identified skeletal collections: a source of bias? Int J Osteoarchaeol 23:186–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Buikstra JE, Ubelaker DH (1994) Standards for data collection from human skeletal remains. Arkansas Archeological Survey Research Series. Arkansas Archeological Survey, FayettevilleGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. Cardoso FA (2008) A portrait of gender in two 19th and 20th century Portuguese populations: a palaeopathological perspective. Doctoral thesis, Durham UniversityGoogle Scholar
  7. Chrisletta P, Spini D (2004) An introduction to generalized estimating equations and an application to assess selectivity effects in a longitudinal study on very old individuals. J Educ Behav Stat 29:421–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. Henderson CY (2009) Musculo-skeletal stress markers in bioarchaeology: indicators of activity levels or human variation. Doctoral thesis, Durham University, DurhamGoogle Scholar
  11. Henderson C (2013a) Subsistence strategy changes: the evidence of entheseal changes. HOMO—J Comp Hum Biol 64:491–508. doi: 10.1016/j.quaint.2013.07.032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Henderson CY (2013b) Technical note: quantifying size and shape of entheses. Anthropol Sci 121:63–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Henderson CY, Craps DD, Caffell AC, Millard AR, Gowland R (2013) Occupational mobility in nineteenth century rural England: the interpretation of entheseal changes. Int J Osteoarchaeol 23:197–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jurmain RD, Alves Cardoso F, Henderson C, Villotte S (2012) Bioarchaeology’s Holy Grail: the reconstruction of activity. In: Grauer A (ed) Companion to paleopathology. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, pp 531–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kuorinka I, Forcier L (1995) Work related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs): a reference book for prevention. Taylor and Francis, LondonGoogle Scholar
  16. Liang KY, Zeger SL (1986) Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika 73:13–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. McCullagh P, Nelder JA (1989) Generalized linear models, 2nd edn. Chapman and Hall, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Milella M, Belcastro MG, Zollikofer CP, Mariotti V (2012) The effect of age, sex, and physical activity on entheseal morphology in a contemporary Italian skeletal collection. Am J Phys Anthropol 148:379–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Milella M, Alves Cardoso F, Assis S, Perréard Lopreno G, Speith N (2014) Exploring the relationship between entheseal changes and physical activity: a multivariate study. Am J Phys Anthropol. doi: 10.1002/ajpa.22640 Google Scholar
  20. 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
  21. Molenberghs G (2010) Generalized estimating equations notes on the choice of the working correlation matrix. Method Inf Med 49:419–420Google Scholar
  22. Molinier F, Laffosse JM, Bouali O, Tricoire JL, Moscovici J (2011) The anconeus, an active lateral ligament of the elbow: new anatomical arguments. Surg Radiol Anat 33:617–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nakagawa S, Cuthill IC (2007) Effect size, confidence interval and statistical significance: a practical guide for biologists. Biol Rev 82:591–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Niinimäki S (2012) The relationship between musculoskeletal stress markers and biomechanical properties of the humeral diaphysis. Am J Phys Anthropol 147:618–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Niinimäki S, Niskanen M, Niinimäki J, Nieminen M, Tuukkanen J, Junno J-A (2013) Modeling skeletal traits and functions of the upper body: comparing archaeological and anthropological material. J Anthropol Archaeol 32:347–351. doi: 10.1016/j.jaa.2012.01.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nikita E (2014) The use of generalized linear models and generalized estimating equations in bioarchaeological studies. Am J Phys Anthropol 153:473–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nolte M, Wilczak C (2013) Three-dimensional surface area of the distal biceps enthesis, relationship to body size, sex, age and secular changes in a 20th century American sample. Int J Osteoarchaeol 23:163–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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
  29. Shaw HM, Benjamin M (2007) Structure-function relationships of entheses in relation to mechanical load and exercise. Scand J Med Sci Sports 17:303–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Villotte S (2006) Connaissances médicales actuelles, cotation des enthésopathies: nouvelle méthode. Bull Mém Soc Anthropol Paris 18:65–85Google Scholar
  31. 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
  32. 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
  33. Weiss E, Corona L, Schultz B (2012) Sex differences in musculoskeletal stress markers: problems with activity pattern reconstructions. Int J Osteoarchaeol 22:70–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wilczak CA (1998) Consideration of sexual dimorphism, age, and asymmetry in quantitative measurements of muscle insertion sites. Int J Osteoarchaeol 8:311–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CIAS – Research Centre for Anthropology and Health, Department of Life SciencesUniversity of CoimbraCoimbraPortugal
  2. 2.Fitch LaboratoryBritish School at AthensAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations