Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorPerréard Lopreno, Geneviève
dc.contributor.authorAlves Cardoso, Francisca
dc.contributor.authorAssis, Sandra
dc.contributor.authorMilella, Marco
dc.contributor.authorSpeith, Nivien
dc.date.accessioned2018-03-12T17:19:21Z
dc.date.available2018-03-12T17:19:21Z
dc.date.issued2013-03
dc.identifier.citationPerréard Lopreno, L. et al (2013) 'Categorization of Occupation in Documented Skeletal Collections: Its Relevance for the Interpretation of Activity-Related Osseous Changes, International Journal of Osteoarchaeology, 23 (2):175.en
dc.identifier.issn1047482X
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/oa.2301
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10545/622275
dc.description.abstractStudies on identified skeletal collections yield discordant results about the association between osseous changes and activity. These dissonances can be ascribed to several factors: the variability of the osseous changes selected for observation, the inconsistency of their interpretative criteria and the inhomogeneous classification of occupation, here used as synonym of profession, within each study. The need to standardize the concept of occupation in its biomechanical and socio-cultural expression is currently addressed by the authors, as members of a working group created after the workshop ‘Musculoskeletal Stress Markers (MSM): limitations and achievements in the reconstruction of past activity patterns’ (Coimbra University, 2009). Within this framework, the authors reviewed the literature dedicated to entheseal changes and functional adaptation of long bones, focusing their research on studies based on European identified skeletal collections and on the criteria used in each study to classify occupations. The aim of this research was to (i) assess agreements and disagreements between authors with regard to the criteria used to categorize occupation, and (ii) highlight the steps needed to build a classification system permitting future comparisons between collections of different chronological and geographical contexts. Data from the literature were exported to a table including the assessment criteria used to classify the occupation for each profession and the assignment of specific occupations to occupational categories. Overall, our results revealed two main issues: an ambiguous historical interpretation of occupation and a marked influence of the researcher's perspective on the criteria used to classify occupations. Therefore, although the table allows basic comparisons between collections, further research is needed in order to obtain shared classifications based on each profession's specifics.
dc.description.sponsorshipN/Aen
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherWileyen
dc.relation.urlhttp://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/oa.2301en
dc.rightsArchived with thanks to International Journal of Osteoarchaeologyen
dc.subjectEntheseal changesen
dc.subjectOccupationen
dc.subjectAnthropologyen
dc.titleCategorization of occupation in documented skeletal collections: Its relevance for the interpretation of activity-related osseous changes.en
dc.typeArticleen
dc.contributor.departmentUniversity of Genevaen
dc.contributor.departmentNova Universityen
dc.contributor.departmentUniversity of Coimbraen
dc.contributor.departmentUniversity of Zurichen
dc.contributor.departmentBournemouth Universityen
dc.identifier.journalInternational Journal of Osteoarchaeologyen
dc.contributor.institutionLaboratory of prehistoric archaeology and anthropology, F.A. Forel Institut - Earth Sciences and Environment; University of Geneva; Geneva; Switzerland
dc.contributor.institutionCRIA - Faculdade de Ciências Sociais e Humanas; Universidade Nova de Lisboa; Lisbon; Portugal
dc.contributor.institutionCIAS - Research Centre for Anthropology and Health; University of Coimbra; Coimbra; Portugal
dc.contributor.institutionAnthropological Institute and Museum; University of Zurich; Zurich; Switzerland
dc.contributor.institutionArchaeological Sciences; University of Bradford; Bradford; England
html.description.abstractStudies on identified skeletal collections yield discordant results about the association between osseous changes and activity. These dissonances can be ascribed to several factors: the variability of the osseous changes selected for observation, the inconsistency of their interpretative criteria and the inhomogeneous classification of occupation, here used as synonym of profession, within each study. The need to standardize the concept of occupation in its biomechanical and socio-cultural expression is currently addressed by the authors, as members of a working group created after the workshop ‘Musculoskeletal Stress Markers (MSM): limitations and achievements in the reconstruction of past activity patterns’ (Coimbra University, 2009). Within this framework, the authors reviewed the literature dedicated to entheseal changes and functional adaptation of long bones, focusing their research on studies based on European identified skeletal collections and on the criteria used in each study to classify occupations. The aim of this research was to (i) assess agreements and disagreements between authors with regard to the criteria used to categorize occupation, and (ii) highlight the steps needed to build a classification system permitting future comparisons between collections of different chronological and geographical contexts. Data from the literature were exported to a table including the assessment criteria used to classify the occupation for each profession and the assignment of specific occupations to occupational categories. Overall, our results revealed two main issues: an ambiguous historical interpretation of occupation and a marked influence of the researcher's perspective on the criteria used to classify occupations. Therefore, although the table allows basic comparisons between collections, further research is needed in order to obtain shared classifications based on each profession's specifics.


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record