1 / 13

Infections in the Subadult Skeletons of San Pedro de Atacama: A Case of the Osteological Paradox?

Infections in the Subadult Skeletons of San Pedro de Atacama: A Case of the Osteological Paradox?. PEDRO JOSÉ TÓTORA DA GLÓRIA MARIA ANTONIETA COSTA WALTER ALVES NEVES. Objective.

ehren
Télécharger la présentation

Infections in the Subadult Skeletons of San Pedro de Atacama: A Case of the Osteological Paradox?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Infections in the Subadult Skeletons of San Pedro de Atacama: A Case of the Osteological Paradox? PEDRO JOSÉ TÓTORA DA GLÓRIA MARIA ANTONIETA COSTA WALTER ALVES NEVES

  2. Objective • Main hypothesis: The influence of the Tiwanaku Empire improved the biological quality of life in San Pedro de Atacama • This hypothesis was tested in subadult skeletons from four distinct time periods of the local prehistory • Unspecific bone infections are used as indicators of biological stress

  3. Study Area • San Pedro de Atacama is one of the driest regions in the world • Excellent conditions for the preservation of archaeological material

  4. Salar de Atacama • The region is located at 2500 meters of altitude • The sites are near the San Pedro River • The oasis are the main locations of human settlement

  5. Prehistory of San Pedro de Atacama • 7500 – 1200 B.C.Hunter-gatherers with high mobility and seasonal food resources, hunted camelids and gathered algarrobo and chañar • 1200 – 500 B.C. Beginning of agriculture, pottery production and the domestication of camelids

  6. 500 B.C. – 400 A.D. Stable and diversified agriculture (mainly maize), diversification of handcraft production (textiles, metals, basketry, bone tools, pottery) • 400 – 950 A.D. Peak influence of the Tiwanaku Empire: important changes in the social organization and material culture of San Pedro de Atacama Intensification of inter-regional trade, movement of caravans and imported goods from Tiwanaku

  7. Tiwanaku´s influence is both religious and economic • 950 – 1450 B.C. Collapse of Tiwanaku Empire; impoverishment of material culture in San Pedro de Atacama; construction of fortifications (pukaras) near the water sources

  8. Unspecific Infections • Periostite and osteomyelite (localized or extensive) • Linked with two main factors: aggregation and populational density nutritional intake

  9. Material and Methods • Sample of 88 subadult skeletons • Periods: Solcor-3 (before Tiwanaku) 250 – 480 A.D. 39 skeletons Solcor-3 (Tiwanaku) 480 – 920 A.D. 18 skeletons Coyo-3 (final influence of Tiwanaku) 910 – 960 A.D. 18 skeletons Quitor-6 (after Tiwanaku) 920 – 1240 A.D. 13 skeletons • Chi-square test (contingency table 2x2)

  10. Results • Solcor-3 (Tiwanaku) shows the highest prevalence of unspecific infections • Solcor-3 (Tiwanaku) shows the highest prevalence of localized periostite and extensive osteomyelite

  11. Discussion • Solcor-3 Tiwanaku has the highest prevalence and degree of infections in subadult skeletons • In adult skeletons, those from Solcor-3 Tiwanaku have the highest stature, lowest prevalence of caries and tooth wear • Adult skeletons and archaeological data point to a picture opposite to that suggested by the infections in subadults

  12. Osteological paradox : “lesion frequencies cannot be interpreted in a straightforward fashion” • Better health can be made by worse skeletons

  13. Conclusions • Inicial hypothesis was not corroborated • We propose that the osteological paradox explains the opposite picture presented by subadult skeletons • Other osteological markers must be analysed to support this interpretation

More Related