用骨骼遗骸作为罗马人生活方式的代表

K. Killgrove
{"title":"用骨骼遗骸作为罗马人生活方式的代表","authors":"K. Killgrove","doi":"10.4324/9781351107334-20","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Analysis of human skeletal remains is becoming increasingly common in classical bioarchaeology, particularly because of the way historians and demographers have begun to pair osteological and biochemical data with evidence from archaeology, epigraphy, and historical records. The field of bioarchaeology has been practised since the 1970s in both the US and the UK, so some geographical and temporal areas have been well studied and methods have been honed in order to answer questions as fully as possible. This is not the case in classical bioarchaeology, where the application of skeletal analysis to answer questions about the Greco-Roman world is much more recent. Skeletons and cemeteries are largely being studied piecemeal owing to vagaries in collections, funding, and personnel available for these sorts of analyses. While the US and UK benefit from published standards for data collection, making many data comparable across time and space, data collection is more haphazard in the Mediterranean. Some researchers use the US Standards for Data Collection from Human Skeletal Remains (Buikstra and Ubelaker, 1994), some researchers use the UK Guidelines to the Standards for Recording Human Remains (Brickley and McKinley, 2004), and others use methods drawn from one or more additional sources (e.g., Moore-Jansen et al., 1994, Steckel et al., 2005; see also individual countries in Márquez-Grant and Fibiger, 2011). The lack of standardization in data collection leads to problems in undertaking synthetic treatments of classical bioarchaeological data. This in turn means a difficulty in being able to marshal evidence to answer larger questions about complicated topics such as imperialism, migration, and health. No true synthetic treatments of classical bioarchaeological data yet exist, although several recent edited volumes have begun to bring together osteological, biochemical, and contextual data for the Greek (e.g., Schepartz et al., 2009) and the Roman world (e.g., Eckardt, 2010, Piccioli et al., 2015).","PeriodicalId":321786,"journal":{"name":"The Routledge Handbook of Diet and Nutrition in the Roman World","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"10","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Using Skeletal Remains as a Proxy for Roman Lifestyles\",\"authors\":\"K. Killgrove\",\"doi\":\"10.4324/9781351107334-20\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Analysis of human skeletal remains is becoming increasingly common in classical bioarchaeology, particularly because of the way historians and demographers have begun to pair osteological and biochemical data with evidence from archaeology, epigraphy, and historical records. The field of bioarchaeology has been practised since the 1970s in both the US and the UK, so some geographical and temporal areas have been well studied and methods have been honed in order to answer questions as fully as possible. This is not the case in classical bioarchaeology, where the application of skeletal analysis to answer questions about the Greco-Roman world is much more recent. Skeletons and cemeteries are largely being studied piecemeal owing to vagaries in collections, funding, and personnel available for these sorts of analyses. While the US and UK benefit from published standards for data collection, making many data comparable across time and space, data collection is more haphazard in the Mediterranean. Some researchers use the US Standards for Data Collection from Human Skeletal Remains (Buikstra and Ubelaker, 1994), some researchers use the UK Guidelines to the Standards for Recording Human Remains (Brickley and McKinley, 2004), and others use methods drawn from one or more additional sources (e.g., Moore-Jansen et al., 1994, Steckel et al., 2005; see also individual countries in Márquez-Grant and Fibiger, 2011). The lack of standardization in data collection leads to problems in undertaking synthetic treatments of classical bioarchaeological data. This in turn means a difficulty in being able to marshal evidence to answer larger questions about complicated topics such as imperialism, migration, and health. No true synthetic treatments of classical bioarchaeological data yet exist, although several recent edited volumes have begun to bring together osteological, biochemical, and contextual data for the Greek (e.g., Schepartz et al., 2009) and the Roman world (e.g., Eckardt, 2010, Piccioli et al., 2015).\",\"PeriodicalId\":321786,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Routledge Handbook of Diet and Nutrition in the Roman World\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-10-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"10\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Routledge Handbook of Diet and Nutrition in the Roman World\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351107334-20\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Routledge Handbook of Diet and Nutrition in the Roman World","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351107334-20","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

摘要

人类骨骼遗骸的分析在经典生物考古学中变得越来越普遍,特别是因为历史学家和人口统计学家已经开始将骨骼学和生化数据与考古学、碑文和历史记录的证据相结合。自20世纪70年代以来,生物考古学领域在美国和英国都得到了实践,因此对一些地理和时间区域进行了很好的研究,并对方法进行了磨练,以便尽可能全面地回答问题。在古典生物考古学中,情况并非如此,在古典生物考古学中,应用骨骼分析来回答有关希腊罗马世界的问题要晚得多。骨骼和墓地的研究在很大程度上是零零碎碎的,因为这些分析的收集、资金和人员都是变幻莫测的。虽然美国和英国受益于公布的数据收集标准,使许多数据在时间和空间上具有可比性,但地中海地区的数据收集更为随意。一些研究人员使用美国人类骨骼遗骸数据收集标准(Buikstra和Ubelaker, 1994年),一些研究人员使用英国人类遗骸记录标准指南(Brickley和McKinley, 2004年),还有一些研究人员使用从一个或多个其他来源提取的方法(例如Moore-Jansen等人,1994年,Steckel等人,2005年;另见个别国家Márquez-Grant和Fibiger, 2011年)。数据收集缺乏标准化,导致对经典生物考古数据进行综合处理存在问题。这反过来又意味着很难整理证据来回答有关帝国主义、移民和健康等复杂话题的更大问题。目前还没有对经典生物考古数据进行真正的综合处理,尽管最近编辑的几卷已经开始将希腊(例如,Schepartz等人,2009年)和罗马世界(例如,Eckardt, 2010年,Piccioli等人,2015年)的骨学、生化和背景数据汇集在一起。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Using Skeletal Remains as a Proxy for Roman Lifestyles
Analysis of human skeletal remains is becoming increasingly common in classical bioarchaeology, particularly because of the way historians and demographers have begun to pair osteological and biochemical data with evidence from archaeology, epigraphy, and historical records. The field of bioarchaeology has been practised since the 1970s in both the US and the UK, so some geographical and temporal areas have been well studied and methods have been honed in order to answer questions as fully as possible. This is not the case in classical bioarchaeology, where the application of skeletal analysis to answer questions about the Greco-Roman world is much more recent. Skeletons and cemeteries are largely being studied piecemeal owing to vagaries in collections, funding, and personnel available for these sorts of analyses. While the US and UK benefit from published standards for data collection, making many data comparable across time and space, data collection is more haphazard in the Mediterranean. Some researchers use the US Standards for Data Collection from Human Skeletal Remains (Buikstra and Ubelaker, 1994), some researchers use the UK Guidelines to the Standards for Recording Human Remains (Brickley and McKinley, 2004), and others use methods drawn from one or more additional sources (e.g., Moore-Jansen et al., 1994, Steckel et al., 2005; see also individual countries in Márquez-Grant and Fibiger, 2011). The lack of standardization in data collection leads to problems in undertaking synthetic treatments of classical bioarchaeological data. This in turn means a difficulty in being able to marshal evidence to answer larger questions about complicated topics such as imperialism, migration, and health. No true synthetic treatments of classical bioarchaeological data yet exist, although several recent edited volumes have begun to bring together osteological, biochemical, and contextual data for the Greek (e.g., Schepartz et al., 2009) and the Roman world (e.g., Eckardt, 2010, Piccioli et al., 2015).
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信