Mind the Gap: Bridging Disability Studies and Bioarchaeology—An Introduction

Chapter
Part of the Bioarchaeology and Social Theory book series (BST)

Abstract

Bioarchaeology—the meticulous study of archaeologically derived human remains—provides us with an empirical dataset that can be used to explore how past variations in social organization affected human bodies.

Keywords

Disability Impairment Bioarchaeology 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We wish to extend our gratitude to our colleagues, who have contributed to this volume. This includes the chapter authors who have carefully engaged with social theories and clinical and historical literature to add to the interdisciplinary focus of the volume. We especially acknowledge those authors outside of bioarchaeology who thoughtfully articulated their own discipline’s theories, ideologies, and practices with the anthropological analysis of human skeletal remains. We thank all of the external reviewers whose insightful comments have added immensely to this body of work. We also acknowledge Katherine Dettwyler and Russell Shuttleworth for the valuable comments provided during the 2015 Embodying Impairment: Towards a Bioarchaeology of Disability symposium. We thank Deb Martin, Bioarchaeology and Social Theory editor, as well as Teresa Kraus and Hana Nagdimov from Springer for all of their assistance in helping this volume come to fruition.

References

  1. Agarwal, S. C., & Glencross, B. A. (2011). Social bioarchaeology. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Álvarez, A. S. (2012). The application of the international classification of functioning, disability, and health in psychiatry: Possible reasons for the lack of implementation. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 91(13), S69–S73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barnes, C. (1991). Disabled people in Britain and discrimination: A case for Anti-discrimination legislation. London: Hurst & Co.Google Scholar
  4. Battles, H. (2011). Towards engagement: Exploring the prospects for an integrated anthropology of disability. vis-à-vis: Explorations in Anthropology, 11(1), 107–124.Google Scholar
  5. Boutin, A. T. (2016). Exploring the social construction of disability: An application of the bioarchaeology of personhood model to a pathological skeleton from ancient Bahrain. International Journal of Paleopathology, 12, 17–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clark, B. J., & Wilkie, L. A. (2006). The Prism of self: Gender and personhood. In S. M. Nelson (Ed.), Handbook of gender in archaeology (pp. 333–364). Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.Google Scholar
  7. Davis, L. (Ed.). (2013a). The disability studies reader (4th ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Davis, L. (2013b). Introduction: Disability, normality, and power. In L. Davis (Ed.), The disability studies reader (4th ed., pp. 1–16). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Davis, L. (2013c). The end of identity politics: On disability as an unstable category. In L. Davis (Ed.), The disability studies reader (4th ed., pp. 263–277). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Dettwyler, K. A. (1991). Can paleopathology provide evidence for ‘compassion’? American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 84, 375–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dickel, D. N., & Doran, G. H. (1989). Severe neural tube defect syndrome from the early Archaic of Florida. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 80, 325–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Finkelstein, V. (1980). Attitudes and disabled people: Issues for discussion. New York: World Rehabilitation Fund.Google Scholar
  13. Finlay, N. (1999). Disability and archaeology. Archaeological Review from Cambridge, 15(2).Google Scholar
  14. Frayer, D. W., Horton, W. A., Macchiareli, R., & Mussi, M. (1987). Dwarfism in an adolescent from the Italian Late Upper Paleolithic. Nature, 330, 60–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Geller, P. L. (2017). The Bioarchaeology of socio-sexual lives: Queering common sense about sex, gender, and sexuality (bioarchaeology and social theory). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goodley, D. (2011). Disability studies: An interdisciplinary introduction. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
  17. Goodley, D., Hughes, B., & Davis, L. (Eds.). (2012). Disability and social theory: New developments and directions. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  18. Gowland, R. L. (2006). Age as an aspect of social identity: The archaeological funerary evidence. In R. L. Gowland & C. J. Knüsel (Eds.), The social archaeology of funerary remains (pp. 143–154). Oxford: Oxbow.Google Scholar
  19. Hollimon, S. E. (2011). Sex and gender in bioarchaeological research. In S. C. Agarwal & B. A. Glencross (Eds.), Social bioarchaeology (pp. 147–182). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hubert, J. (Ed.). (2000). Madness, disability and social exclusion: The archaeology and anthropology of ‘difference’. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Joyce, R. A. (2000). Gender and power in prehispanic Mesoamerica. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  22. Joyce, R. A. (2009). Ancient bodies, ancient lives: Sex, gender, and archaeology. New York: Thames & Hudson.Google Scholar
  23. Kasnitz, D., & Shuttleworth, R. P. (2001). Engaging anthropology in disability studies. In L. J. Rogers & B. B. Swadener (Eds.), Semiotics and dis/ability: Interrogating categories of difference (pp. 19–42). Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  24. Knüsel, C. J. (1999). Orthopaedic disability: Some hard evidence. Archaeological Review from Cambridge, 15(2), 31–53.Google Scholar
  25. Lovell, N. C. (2016). Tiptoeing through the rest of his life: A functional adaptation to a leg shortened by femoral neck fracture. International Journal of Paleopathology, 13, 91–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Marsteller, S. J., Torres-Rouff, C., & Knudson, K. J. (2011). Pre-Columbian Andean sickness ideology and the social experience of leishmaniasis: A contextualized analysis of bioarchaeological and paleopathological data from San Pedro de Atacama, Chile. International Journal of Paleopathology, 1(1), 24–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nevitt, M., Felson, D., & Lester, G. (2006). The osteoarthritis initiative: Protocol for the cohort study. https://oai.epi-ucsf.org/datarelease/. Accessed April 15 2016.
  28. Nielsen, K. E. (2012). A disability history of the United States. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  29. Oliver, M. (1990). The politics of disablement. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Oliver, M. (2004). The social model in action: If I had a hammer. In C. Barnes & G. Mercer (Eds.), Implementing the social model of disability (pp. 18–31). Leeds: The Disability Press.Google Scholar
  31. Rapp, R., & Ginsburg, F. (2012). Anthropology and the study of disability worlds. In M. C. Inhorn & E. A. Wentzell (Eds.), Medical anthropology at the intersections: Histories, activisms, and futures (pp. 163–182). Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Reid-Cunningham, A. R. (2009). Anthropological theories of disability. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 19(1), 99–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Roberts, C. A. (1999). Disability in the skeletal record: Assumptions, problems and some examples. Archaeological Review from Cambridge, 15(2), 79–97.Google Scholar
  34. Roberts, C. A. (2000). Did they take sugar? The use of skeletal evidence in the study of disability in past populations. In J. Hubert (Ed.), Madness, disability and social exclusion: The archaeology and anthropology of ‘difference’ (pp. 46–59). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  35. Robb, J. (2002). Time and biography. Osteobiography of the Italian Neolithic lifespan. In Y. Hamilakis, M. Pluciennik, & S. Tarlow (Eds.), Thinking Through the Body: Archaeologies of Corporeality (pp. 153–172). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.Google Scholar
  36. Roush, S. E., & Sharby, N. (2011). Disability reconsidered: The paradox of physical therapy. Physical Therapy, 91(12), 1715–1727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schacht, R. M. (2001). Engaging anthropology in disability studies: American Indian issues. Disability Studies Quarterly, 21(3), 17–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Shakespeare, T. (1999). Commentary: Observations on disability and archaeology. Archaeological Review from Cambridge, 15(2), 99–101.Google Scholar
  39. Shakespeare, T. (2006). Disability rights and wrongs (1st ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Shakespeare, T. (2013). Disability rights and wrongs revisited (2nd ed.). Hoboken: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  41. Siebers, T. (2008). Disability theory. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sofaer, J. (2006). The body as material culture: A theoretical osteoarchaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Southwell-Wright, W. (2013). Past perspectives: What can archaeology offer disability studies? In M. Wappett & K. Arndt (Eds.), Emerging perspectives on disability studies (pp. 67–95). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stodder, A. L. W., & Palkovich, A. M. (Eds.). (2012). The Bioarchaeology of Individuals. University Press of Florida: Gainesville.Google Scholar
  45. Swain, J., French, S., Barnes, C., & Thomas, C. (Eds.). (2014). Disabling barriers—Enabling environments (3rd ed.). London: SAGE.Google Scholar
  46. Tilley, L. (2015). Theory and Practice in the bioarchaeology of care. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tilley, L., & Cameron, T. (2014). Introducing the index of care: A web-based application supporting archaeological research into health-related care. International Journal of Paleopathology, 6, 5–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tilley, L., & Oxenham, M. F. (2011). Survival against the odds: Modeling the social implications of care provision to seriously disabled individuals. International Journal of Paleopathology, 1(1), 35–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Trigger, B. (2006). A history of archaeological thought (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Trinkaus, E., & Zimmerman, M. R. (1982). Trauma among the Shanidar Neanderthals. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 57, 61–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. van Duijvenbode, A., Herschensohn, O. J., & Morgan, M. E. (2015). A severe case of congenital aural atresia in pre-Columbian Venezuela. International Journal of Paleopathology, 9, 15–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Waldron, T. (2000). Hidden or overlooked? Where are the disadvantaged in the skeletal record? In J. Hubert (Ed.), Madness, disability and social exclusion: The archaeology and anthropology of ‘difference’ (pp. 29–45). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  53. Watson, N., Roulstone, A., & Thomas, C. (2012). Routledge handbook of disability studies. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  54. Wood, J. W., Milner, G. R., Harpending, H. C., & Weiss, K. M. (1992). The osteological paradox: Problems of inferring prehistoric health from skeletal samples. Current Anthropology, 33(4), 343–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. WHO. (2011). World report on disability. Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
  56. Zakrzewski, S. (2011). Population migration, variation, and identity. In S. C. Agarwal & B. A. Glencross (Eds.), Social bioarchaeology (pp. 183–211). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Social SciencesUniversity of Hawai’i–West O’ahuKapoleiUSA
  2. 2.Department of AnthropologyIthaca CollegeIthacaUSA

Personalised recommendations