Building a New Biocultural Synthesis: Political-Economic Perspectives on Human Biology

6. The Biological Consequences of Inequality in Antiquity

Chapter 6 The Biological Consequences of Inequality in Antiquity Alan H. Goodman Bioarchaeology, the study of human biological remains in archaeological contexts, is at a critical point of reconsidering methods and objectives. With the passing of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA, US PL 101-601) and increased movement in many countries toward reburial of archaeologically recovered objects, not least of which are human remains, for the first time bioarchaeologists have begun to seriously consider the ethics of their work (Martin, this vol., chap. 7; Rose, Greene, and Greene 1996). Somewhat paradoxically, this critical period comes after two decades oftheoretical and methodological development during which bioarchaeology became more ofan anthropological science, and more concerned with the lives of real peoples. Following from its parent fields of human adaptability and processual archaeology, in the 1980s bioarchaeology developed from a descriptive science (with primary goals of charting the geographic and temporal distribution of human types and infirmities) to an evolutionary and ecological science (focused on the processes by which past peoples became ill and other biocultural concerns). Descriptive bioarchaeology focuses simply on the question of presence/absence of a pathology, such as dental caries, in a specific time and place. In contrast, a more processual bioarchaeology calls for examining the pattern of caries in order to shed light on social and ecological variables such as diet, food preparation technologies, weaning practices, and oral hygiene. By testing among competing hypotheses to explain the distribution of disease, studies of disease in antiquity, paleopathology, became paleoepidemiology, a processual and populational science. By trying to understand the burden of disease in antiquity, bioarchaeologists became better equipped to understand how infirmities related to social formations and change. 147 148 Building a New Biocultural Synthesis Somewhat paradoxically, even with the development of a processual and epidemiological approach in bioarchaeology, the range of questions explored has not expanded to the point where bioarchaeology has much relevance to the lives ofcontemporary peoples. Part ofthis limitation may be traced to the material limits of what preserves well and to the questions amenable to study. However, bioarchaeology has also been limited by a still narrow theoretical focus and suppositions about the behavior of past individuals and groups. For example, a prevalent view of societies as integrated , functional wholes and a focus on evolutionary questions within a narrow ecological framework, adopted from processual archaeology and human adaptability, restricts analyses ofthe relationship between biological well-being and inequalities in access to and control of resources. Studies are infrequent ofthe distribution ofdisease and death within a group or in relationship to sociopolitical factors. As well, studies of health differences among groups have nearly invariably focused on differences in ecology and economics (food procurement strategies, settlement systems, etc.) to explain health patterns; few between-group studies of health consider differences in governance or access to ideology and political power. Of course "ideology" and "power" do not leave unambiguous archaeological signatures. However, these regional and class-based power differentials are the major determinants of health today (Navarro 1976; Waitzkin 1983), and I see no obligatory reason why they would not have been key to health in antiquity. The focus of this chapter is on the problems and potentials for assessing inequality in antiquity and relating patterns ofinequality to patterns of health. Presented first is a briefhistory ofbioarchaeology. I highlight how the transition to an anthropological bioarchaeology has failed to consider health beyond a strictly defined ecological and evolutionary perspective. That is, relations of power have not been a focus. Next presented are examples of the study of health in the past, at Westerhus, Sweden, and at Dickson Mounds, Illinois, in relationship to variation in access to resource and power within geographically defined groups. Lastly, with examples from the Nile River Valley and Dickson Mounds again, I consider the case for inequalities based on geographic location. A Brief History of Paleoepidemiology Since before the time of Darwin, human skeletons have frequently been unearthed and studied by naturalists, medical professionals, and later on The Biological Consequences ofInequality in Antiquity 149 by physical anthropologists (Armelagos et al. 1971, 1982; Ubelaker 1982). For Westerners, at least, this activity appears to be driven by fascination with how long-deceased individuals looked, their maladies, and how they lived and died.1 Ubelaker (1982) divides the historical development of paleopathology , the study of health and disease in past peoples, into four periods, all beginning before the 1960s. The last...