social “status” and biological “status”: a comparison of grave goods and skeletal indicators...

Social “Status” and Biological “Status”:A Comparison of Grave Goods and Skeletal IndicatorsFrom PontecagnanoJohn Robb,1* Renzo Bigazzi,2 Luca Lazzarini,2 Caterina Scarsini,2 and Fiorenza Sonego2

1Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton, Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK2Istituto di Antropologia, Universita di Firenze, Florence 50122, Italy

KEY WORDS Italy; Iron Age; inequality; health; activity; burial

ABSTRACT Comparison of funerary treatment andskeletal biology can be very informative about the in-terplay of social status and meanings and actual lifeconditions in ancient communities, but such comparisonis rarely done, due in part to the disciplinary separationof bioanthropology and social archaeology in many ar-chaeological traditions. In this paper, we analyze rela-tions between skeletal pathologies and grave goods in asample of 94 individuals from Pontecagnano (Salerno,Italy, seventh–third centuries BC). The results showthat the relationship between health, activity, and so-cial status as expressed in grave goods was complex.

Some biological indicators considered typical of “stress”or biological status (enamel hypoplasia, cribra orbitalia,adult stature) bore no relation to social status. Otherindicators, particularly those of activity and stress inadult life (trauma, Schmorl’s nodes, periostitis), covar-ied with grave assemblage and help to outline a possibledivision of labor. As this analysis shows, when skeletaland archaeological data are used in conjunction, theresult is a deeper picture of the social and economic lifeof the community than can be obtained from eithersource. Am J Phys Anthropol 115:213–222, 2001.© 2001 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Life is hard for the poor. In comparison with thewealthy, the lower classes may suffer from a rangeof biological stresses: inferior nutrition, high levelsof disease, polluted living sites and water sources,poor or no medical care, and long hours and years ofwork at physically demanding or risky jobs. Theresults are well-documented in many modern soci-eties: poorer people often have poorer health,smaller adult body size, and shorter lifespans thanwell-off people.

Was this also true in ancient societies? A numberof studies have suggested that prehistoric and his-toric elites were taller, better fed, or healthier thantheir poorer compatriots (Angel, 1984; BorgogniniTarli et al., 1992; Cohen, 1989; Hatch and Willey,1974; Haviland, 1967; Rose, 1985; Schoeninger,1979). However, other studies have shown thatelites and commoners often did not differ skeletally(e.g., White et al., 1993; Wilkinson and Norelli,1981). The landmark study by Powell (1988, 1991) ofMississippian elites provides the most thorough andwide-ranging example. In some Mississippian com-munities, skeletons from elite burials were taller,exhibited decreased incidences of disease, or weredistinguished by signs of different activities or work-loads. But this was not true at other sites, particu-larly at Moundville, and elite-commoner differenceswere far from consistent in spite of an apparentlyhomogeneous cultural and social setting.

In fact, there are at least three preconditions forestablishing archaeologically a relationship betweenhealth, based upon skeletal data, and status, basedupon funerary treatment. None is free of complicat-ing factors.

Premise 1

The society in question was stratified into hierar-chical social groups whose actual lifestyles differedsignificantly in terms of nutrition, health, activity,stress, or risk. If not, higher and lower classes willbe homogeneous skeletally in spite of any experi-enced or symbolized differences between them.

Premise 2

Elite and commoner burials can be distinguishedthrough archaeological evidence such as gravegoods, tomb construction, segregation within oramong cemeteries, and ritual treatment. Althougharchaeologists commonly interpret grave goods interms of social roles, wealth, and status (Beck, 1995;Bietti Sestieri, 1992; Binford, 1972; O’Shea, 1984;Saxe, 1970), the relation between status in life and

*Correspondence to: Dr. John Robb, Department of Archaeology,University of Southampton, Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK.E-mail: [email protected]

Received 24 April 2000; accepted 14 March 2001.

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 115:213–222 (2001)

© 2001 WILEY-LISS, INC.

treatment in death is mediated by many factorswhich can include the circumstances of death, thepolitical situation of the surviving community, andspecific ideologies of death and identity. Hence fu-nerary symbolism can be complex and misleading(cf. Brown, 1995; Parker Pearson, 1982; Ucko, 1969).Grave goods thus deserve a contextual readingrather than a simple translation into living status.Skeletal evidence can in fact form part of such areading, by showing the extent to which differencesin funerary treatment may correlate with actual lifeconditions.

Premise 3

Health and physical well-being in living peoplecan be accurately distinguished archaeologicallythrough skeletal indicators in the dead. At least twofactors complicate this premise. First, all skeletalindicators have particular conditions, stimuli, andthresholds for formation and remodelling, and theymay form a mosaic of responses to complex biologicalsituations more often than they form a coherentsyndrome of skeletal stigma. Moreover, even when askeletal indicator has been demonstrated clinicallyto relate to poor health or malnutrition in moderngroups, it can still be unclear how to interpret it interms of a group’s experience. For example, as verycommon responses to relatively minor stresses,enamel hypoplasias may sometimes be better con-sidered as normal variants rather than pathologicalstates. The second problem is the “osteological par-adox” (Wood et al., 1992; cf. Cohen, 1995; Wood andMilner, 1994). As Wood et al. (1992) demonstrate,paradoxically, a population decimated by disease orwarfare at a young age may appear relativelyhealthy skeletally, while one which lived to ripe oldages may have accumulated far more skeletal pa-thologies. Without despairing of paleopathologicalinterpretation, these considerations suggest that anuanced interpretation may be more appropriatethan an across the board designation of a populationas “stressed” or “healthy.”

Rather than seeking simple correspondences be-tween biological “status” and social “status,” it isbetter to attempt a more nuanced reading of thedata which will contribute a detailed picture of pastcommunities in the great majority of cases in whichsuch a simple correspondence will probably be lack-ing.

In this study, our goal was to test whether therewas a relation between funerary treatment and skel-etal health at Pontecagnano, an Iron Age and earlyhistorical site in Campania, Italy. We have twogoals: to understand the nature of Iron Age societyin Southern Italy, and to present an example of howskeletal and funerary data can be analyzed jointly tolearn more than would be possible from each sourceseparately.

MATERIALS AND METHODSPontecagnano and burial in Iron Age Italy

Pontecagnano is located on the west coast of Italy,about 60 km south of Naples (Fig. 1). First settled inthe late Bronze Age, by the fifth century BC Pon-tecagnano was an independent city populated by amixture of native Italic peoples, Samnites from theinternal highlands, Etruscan colonists, and proba-bly some Greeks from nearby colonies around Na-ples. In the late fourth century BC, Rome began toexpand into the area, and the area came under Ro-man control in 268 BC (d’Agostino, 1974; Frederick-sen, 1974).

Archaeological work at Pontecagnano has focusedon the city’s vast cemeteries, in response to distur-bance by urban and highway construction. Over6,000 tombs have been excavated, spanning theninth–third centuries BC (d’Agostino and Gastaldi,1988; De Natale, 1992; Serritella, 1995). Almost allburials are individual inhumations within a varietyof tomb forms. Many of the skeletons from Pontecag-nano have been studied anthropologically (Becker,1993; Capasso et al., 1994; Cencetti 1989; Fornaciariet al., 1984, 1986; Germana and Fornaciari 1992;Lombardi Pardini et al., 1984, 1992; Mallegni et al.,1984; Pardini et al., 1982, 1983; Petrone, 1995;Robb, 1994, 1997, 1998; Scarsini and Bigazzi, 1995;Sonego, 1991; Sonego and Scarsini, 1994). In gen-eral, these studies portray Pontecagnano’s popula-tion as a typical ancient urban group, characterizedby moderate stature and longevity, high rates ofenamel hypoplasia and physical stress markers,high trauma especially in males, and high rates of

Fig. 1. Map of Pontecagnano and surrounding cities.

214 J. ROBB ET AL.

dental disease. Aside from the study by Vida Na-varro (1992) comparing gendered grave goods withskeletal sex, there has never been a joint analysis ofskeletal and archaeological material from the site.

There is little doubt that Pontecagnano was asocially stratified community. By the fifth centuryBC it was a sizable town about a kilometer in diam-eter, with several distinct necropolises. Thoughthere is little textual evidence on Pontecagnano it-self, it was normal for Italian cities of this period,especially along the more developed Tyrrheniancoast, to be governed by officials drawn from awealthy elite which owned land, carried on tradewith Greeks, Etruscans, and Phoenicians, and sup-ported craftspeople producing textiles, metalwork,pottery, and other commodities (Pallottino, 1991).Exotic goods and sophisticated local craft productsin Pontecagnano’s burials testify to the concentra-tion of wealth, participation in long-distance trade,and a complex local division of labor (Serritella,1995), as do the sophisticated pottery workshopsexcavated in the city (Cerchiai, 1990). Contempo-rary burials from different areas of Pontecagnanocemeteries differ in wealth of grave goods, suggest-ing partial mortuary segregation (Serritella, 1995).

Grave goods in Italian Iron Age societies partiallyreflected social standing. While the heyday of ex-tremely wealthy “princely burials” in the eighth–seventh centuries BC was followed by a generalleveling of funerary treatment as families adver-tised wealth and status in other ways, burial in thepre-Roman period was marked by differentiation intomb elaboration and in funerary goods. Asd’Agostino (1982; cf. Morris, 1992) has warned, Ital-ian Iron Age funerary ideology had its own internalstructure and symbolisms, and grave goods cannotbe translated directly into social roles. For example,important social dimensions such as occupationalspecialization and legal status were rarely symbol-ized in burials. But grave goods do indicate access towealth to some degree. For instance, differences inornaments such as fibulae probably reflect the elab-orateness of the burial costume, particularly amongfemale burials. Weapons were common symbols ofadult, and sometimes elite, male status (Bietti Ses-tieri, 1992; Vida Navarro, 1992). While the extent towhich pottery in classical antiquity was an expen-sive, exclusive good is controversial (Shanks, 1996),pots included in burials may reflect how extensivethe burial rite was or how many people attended.

The skeletal sample

Although thousands of graves have been exca-vated in the two major and several smaller Pon-tecagnano necropolises, the skeletal collection hasnever been curated and studied as a unified entity.Many skeletons have never been studied, and seg-ments of the collection have been studied by at leastfour distinct research groups (Becker, 1993; Capassoet al., 1994; Cencetti 1989; Fornaciari et al., 1984,1986; Germana and Fornaciari, 1992; Lombardi

Pardini et al., 1984, 1992; Mallegni et al., 1984;Pardini et al., 1982, 1983; Petrone, 1995; Robb,1994, 1997, 1998; Scarsini and Bigazzi, 1995; So-nego, 1991; Sonego and Scarsini, 1994). These sub-collections are generally defined by the particulararea of the necropolis, the centuries to which theburials date, and the period in which they wereexcavated.

The burials studied here form part of a group of370 burials entrusted to the Museo Nazionale diAntropologia (Florence) for study.{Table1} Thisgroup results from excavations carried out by theSoprintendenza of Salerno, Avellino, and Beneventobetween 1979–1982. These burials span the ninththrough third centuries BC, during which periodPontecagnano society and burial customs changedmarkedly. Thus, for purposes of this study it was feltappropriate to limit the sampling universe to burialsfrom a discrete and more homogeneous period, thelater fifth through early third centuries BC (a par-allel analysis was conducted on burials from theeighth–mid-fifth centuries BC, but is not reportedhere due to space limitations). To maximize samplesize, it was decided to analyze all available skele-tons, rather than sampling formally from within thiscollection. Given this, the reliability of resultshinges broadly upon how representative the collec-tion is of the population of Pontecagnano during thisperiod as a whole, rather than upon the relationbetween this sample and the subcollection it isdrawn upon. Of the 150 skeletons from this one-and-a-half-century period, 94 were sexable adults; theremainder either were subadults or lacked well-pre-served sexing criteria. The sample analyzed thuscomprises all available sexed burials excavated be-tween 1979–1982 and falling within the chronolog-ical limits of the study. Basic details of many ofthese burials are published in Robb (1994, 1997,1998), Scarsini and Bigazzi (1995), Sonego (1991),and Sonego and Scarsini (1994).

Although the skeletal sample was excavated ac-cording to the needs of modern urban developmentrather than through a formal sampling design, incomposition, it is typical of the burials representingthe final phases of the Pontecagnano necropolises(Serritella, 1995). Fifty of the burials come from asmall area south of the main western necropolis (theproprieta Tascone, Di Dato, Boccone, and Maisto);the others were scattered in the main eastern andwestern necropolises. The sample thus represents

TABLE 1. Burials studied from Pontecagnano, mid-fifth–thirdcenturies BC

Age (years) Female Male Total

20–30 17 13 3030–40 8 13 2140–50 6 17 2350–60 5 9 14601 0 1 1Not aged 3 2 5Total 39 55 94

SOCIAL STATUS AND BIOLOGICAL STATUS 215

the primary burial areas for the town during thelater fifth through third centuries BC. The excava-tions were carried out by clearing entire areas tosubsoil, thus eliminating possible biases resultingfrom differential archaeological visibility withinnecropolises. Within each necropolis area, skeletalpreservation was consistent and not noticeably af-fected by funerary treatment. The most serious po-tential bias affecting this skeletal sample is likely tobe differential representation of the social spectrum.Burials from each area within the necropolis displaya range of grave goods and burial treatments fromsimple pit graves with no surviving goods to well-built, complex tombs with over 40 surviving items,including imports and rare metals (Serritella, 1995).This suggests that the burial sample presents agenerally representative cross section of Pontecag-nano’s dead. However, the possibility remains thatparts of the social spectrum may not be represented,particularly the most elite stratum and the loweststratum of society: burials of the former are inher-ently infrequent, and the latter may not have beenburied formally at all. However, this possible biasaffects all burial archaeology, and while it must beacknowledged, it should not prevent analysis of atleast that burial sample we have, with the under-standing that it represents certain social strata froma particular period within the city’s history.

Data collection

Skeletons were aged and sexed, and a range ofpathological and activity-related data was collected.Sexing and aging were carried out by all co-authors.Sexing was carried out using the skull and pelviswith standards from Workshop of European Anthro-pologists (1980), Krogman and Iscan (1986), andBuikstra and Ubelaker (1984). Aging was carriedout using epiphyseal fusion (Krogman and Iscan,1986), the pubic symphysis (Krogman and Iscan,1986), the auricular surface (Lovejoy et al., 1985),and cranial suture closure (Meindl and Lovejoy,1985). While the accuracy of standard aging meth-ods was recently critiqued (Cox and Mays, 2000), forthis study, aging data were used primarily in pre-liminary data screening. No significant differencewas found between male and female age distribu-tions, or between burials with different combina-tions of grave goods. This usefully suggests that anyassociations observed between health and gravegoods are not artifacts created by age-progressivehealth conditions in subgroups with different agestructures.

Six features of pathological and activity-relatedtraits are analyzed here.

1. Stature. Adult stature results from a number offactors, including nutrition and health during theperiod of growth (Larsen, 1997). Skeletally, staturewas estimated by linear regression from measuredlong bone lengths, using the formulae of Trotter andGleser (1952, 1958) for whites.

2. Enamel hypoplasia. Linear enamel hypopla-sias are developmental defects in the surface of theteeth which result from growth interruptions duringthe period in childhood when the tooth was forming.Such growth interruptions can be caused by a num-ber of factors, including episodes of infectious dis-ease, malnutrition, and other forms of stress (Good-man and Rose, 1991; Skinner and Goodman, 1992).In this study, enamel hypoplasias were observed asper Buikstra and Ubelaker (1994). We use both themaximum number of hypoplasias observed on a sin-gle tooth in the dentition and the percentage ofindividuals with more than one hypoplastic lesion asmeasures of chronic growth interruptions in child-hood.

3. Cribra orbitalia. Cribra orbitalia involves thedeposition of new bone on the roofs of the orbits,stimulated by iron deficiency in the blood; it canresult ultimately from malnutrition, intestinal par-asites, infectious disease, scurvy, and various ane-mias (Hengen, 1971; Stuart-Macadam, 1989).

4. Trauma. Trauma includes the presence ofhealed fractures in the skeleton, whether caused byviolence, accidents, or unknown causes.

5. Tibial periostitis. Periosteal deposition of newbone is a common pathological reaction to variousinfectious diseases and traumas (Ortner and Put-schar, 1981). While we observed periostitis through-out the skeleton for valid statistical comparisonsbetween skeletons of different degrees of preserva-tion, we analyze here the frequency of periostitis atthe specific location where it occurred most com-monly, i.e., the tibia shaft.

6. Schmorl’s nodes. Schmorl’s nodes are smallcavities in the thoracic and lumbar vertebral bodieswhich result from damage to the intervertebraldiscs; they may often be due to minor trauma relatedto heavy physical stress (Ortner and Putschar,1981), although their etiology and social correlatesare not entirely understood (Jurmain, 1998).

Archaeological data for the burials studied weretranscribed from the archives of the Museo Nazion-ale dell’Agro Picentino. Since this research, tomblots for 69 of these tombs have been published (Ser-ritella, 1995). All archaeological data were collectedonly after the skeletal analysis was completely fin-ished, to avoid biasing diagnoses of sex, age, andhealth. The most common grave goods were potteryvessels of various forms and fabrics, followed byornaments, primarily fibulae. Weapons (primarilyspear points, with a few swords) were found virtu-ally exclusively with males. There was also a widerange of other goods which occurred in low frequen-cies, e.g., knives, coins, belts, beads, tools, personalornaments, and andirons. We analyze here only gen-eral aspects of the overall composition of assem-blages:

216 J. ROBB ET AL.

a) Total items per burial.b) Total ceramic vessels per burial.c) Total items other than vessels per burial.d) Total ornaments per burial.e) Total items of weapons and armor per burial

(males only).

Data analysis

The main thrust of data analysis was simplycross-tabulation of biological and social variables,with significance testing to assess the probability ofa relationship between the two. In each case, thenull hypothesis was that there was no relationshipbetween the biological and the social variable. Thethreshold a was set to 0.05. Significance testing insuch a situation must be subject to several caveats.While it cannot be rigorously applied in situations inwhich data are not completely randomly selected, itcan provide a useful tool for assessing the likelihoodof the observed data in comparison with hypotheti-cal populations of data generated under similar con-ditions (Blalock, 1979; Cowgill, 1977; Thomas,1986). This is by far its most common use in anthro-pology and archaeology; the principal precaution

necessary is to consider possible sample biases andassure, as far as possible, that the data analyzed arerepresentative of the hypothetical population aboutwhich inferences are being drawn (see The SkeletalSample, above). A second problem concerns the pos-sibility of spurious “significant” results. When largenumbers of significance tests are run, approximately5% of them may yield “significant” results even withcompletely random data. Such spurious results canbe distinguished from meaningful results by theirlack of consistent direction and systematic interre-lation, and often because they are based on a fewindividuals with extreme or unusual values. In thisanalysis, when a P-value below a was returned, thedata were examined further through direct inspec-tion, through the use of f2 measures of strength ofassociation in conjunction with x2 tests, and throughBonferroni tests where ANOVA was used. In almostall cases, the extent to which the relationship wasanthropologically meaningful was straightforwardto assess (see Tables 2 and 3).

Of the biological indicators, stature was analyzedas a numeric variable; dental enamel hypoplasiawas analyzed both as a numerical variable (maxi-

TABLE 2. Summary of statistical relations among social and biological variables in the female sample

Biological variables and social factors1

Biologicalvariables Total goods2 Total goods3 Total pots

Total goodsother than

pots Ornaments

Stature See note14 n.r.4 n.r.4 n.r.4 n.r.4Hypoplasia n.r.4 See note 24 See note 34 n.r.4 n.r.4Cribra

orbitalian.r.6 n.r.5 n.r.5 n.r.5 n.r.5

Schmorl’snodes

n.r.6 n.r.5 n.r.5 n.r.5,* n.r.5

Trauma n.r.6 n.r.5 n.r.5 n.r.5 n.r.5Tibial

periostitisn.r.6 n.r.5 n.r.5 n.r.5 n.r.5

Explanatory notes for statistically significant relationships between biological variables and social factors

Notes RelationshipSignificance

and test Comments

1 Stature: totalgoods(categorical)

0.020 (ANOVA,Bonferroni)

Probably spurious; Kruskal-Wallis Hgives nonsignificant result.Nonmonotonic relationship: womenwith 2–3 goods are tallest. Based onfour outliers.

2 Hypoplasia: totalgoods(numerical)


Probably spurious; Kruskal-Wallis Hgives nonsignificant result.Nonmonotonic relationship: womenwith two hypoplasias have mostgoods. Influenced by two outliers.

3 Hypoplasia: totalpots


Probably spurious; Kruskal-Wallis Hgives nonsignificant result.Nonmonotonic relationship: womenwith two hypoplasias have most pots.Influenced by two outliers.

1 n.r., no statistically significant relation.2 Total goods expressed as multiple categorical variable.3 Total goods expressed as numerical variable.4 Tested using ANOVA and Kruskal-Wallis H.5 Tested using Student’s t and Mann-Whitney U.6 Tested using x2.* Significant at 0.1 level but not at 0.05 level.


mum number of lesions in dentition) and as a cate-gorical variable (presence of more than one hypo-plastic lesion); cribria orbitalia, Schmorl’s nodes,trauma, and tibial periostitis were analyzed as di-chotomous categorical variables. The funerary indi-cators were all treated as numerical variables exceptfor weapons, which were recoded to a presence/ab-sence variable; total goods was also recoded into afour-category variable and analyzed in this form.Statistical tests were carried out using the test ap-propriate to the combination of variables being an-alyzed, including x2 analysis of contingency tablesfor nominal data, nonparametric tests includingMann-Whitney’s U and Kruskal-Wallis’ H tests forordinal and interval data, and Student’s t-test andANOVA for interval data. The specific tests for eachcomparison are noted in Tables 2 and 3. Althoughthe assumption of normality is considered less rigidwhen sample sizes are large (Thomas, 1986), wher-ever possible, data were analyzed by both nonpara-metric and numerical tests (e.g., Student’s t-test andthe Mann-Whitney U test for two-group compari-sons, and ANOVA and the Kruskal-Wallis H test forcomparing multiple groups). In most such instances,the results of the two tests agreed closely; when theydisagreed, this is noted in Tables 2 and 3.

Preliminary data screening showed that femalestypically were buried with more goods and with a

greater variety of goods than males. We thereforecarried out all statistical analyses separately by sex.Within male and female groups, all biological andsocial indicators were cross-tabulated against age tocontrol for possible age-related patterns. None werefound. Moreover, there were no significant relation-ships among any of the six skeletal indicators stud-ied, either for females or for males. This suggeststhat the pattern of stress underlying these skeletalindicators is complex rather than a simple contrastbetween deprivation and privilege. Finally, based onpatterns found in the first round of data analysis,the male sample was examined further, using a va-riety of methods ranging from simple cross-tabula-tion of grave goods vs. biological indicators to mul-tivariate cluster analysis intended to identifysubgroups of the population. Since the results werevery similar for all analyses, we present straightfor-ward tabulations (Table 4).

RESULTS

As Tables 2 and 3 show, there is little systematicrelationship between skeletal indicators of biologicalstatus and archaeological indicators of social status.Even when differences in health between individu-als with different grave assemblages seemed appar-ent on initial inspection, they were rarely statisti-cally significant, and some statistically significant

TABLE 3. Summary of statistical relations among social and biological variables in the male sample

Biological variables and social factors1

Biologicalvariables Total goods2 Total goods2 Total pots

Total goodsother than

pots Ornaments Weapons

Stature n.r.4 n.r.4 n.r.4 n.r.4 n.r.4 n.r.5Hypoplasia n.r.4 n.r.4 n.r.4 n.r.4 n.r.4 n.r.4Cribra

orbitalian.r.6 n.r.5 n.r.5 n.r.5 n.r.5 n.r.6

Schmorl’snodes

n.r.6 n.r.5 n.r.5 n.r.5 n.r.5 See note 16

Trauma n.r.6 n.r.5 See note 25 n.r.5 n.r.5 n.r.6Tibial

periostitisn.r.6 See note 35 See note 45 n.r.5 n.r.5 See note 56

Explanatory notes for statistically significant relationships between biological variables and social factors

Notes RelationshipSignificance

and test Comments

1 Schmorl’s nodes:weapons

0.025 (x2;f2 5 0.109)

Inverse relationship

2 Trauma: total pots 0.022 (U);0.104 (T)


3 Tibial periostitis:total goods

0.01 (U);0.043 (T)


4 Tibial periostitis:total pots

0.019 (U);0.212 (T)


5 Tibial periostitis:weapons

0.05 (x2;f2 5 0.076)


1 n.r., no statistically significant relation.2 Total goods expressed as multiple categorical variable.3 Total goods expressed as numerical variable.4 Tested using ANOVA and Kruskal-Wallis H.5 Tested using Student’s t and Mann-Whitney U.6 Tested using x2.* Significant at 0.1 level but not at 0.05 level.

218 J. ROBB ET AL.

results appeared on closer examination to be proba-bly spurious. In the females, there were no statisti-cally significant relationships between grave goodsand skeletal features which were contextually con-vincing on closer examination. The only potentiallink was between Schmorl’s nodes and total nonpot-tery items (which consisted primarily of ornaments),though this was not significant at the 0.05 level.Given that ornaments were an important means forwomen to display wealth, an inverse association be-tween ornaments and signs of physical stress seemsplausible.

Among males there was more evidence of socialdivision in skeletal health. Stature, enamel hypopla-sia, and cribra orbitalia displayed no significant re-lations to grave goods at all. However, Schmorl’snodes were inversely related to weapons, andtrauma was inversely related to total pottery itemsper burial. Traumatic lesions in the sample occurredin a wide range of locations in the skeleton, andindividuals often bore multiple injuries. Among fe-males, 4 of 39 individuals were affected, with lesionsin the skull (2 cases), ribs, clavicle, ulna, and radius.Among males, 21 of 55 individuals were affected,with lesions in the skull (4 cases), vertebrae, ribs (3cases), clavicle (5 cases), humerus (3 cases), radius(3 cases), ulna, hand (2 cases), femur (2 cases), andfoot (3 cases). Two cases in males are directly ascrib-able to violence: a perimortem depressed skull frac-ture (described in Robb, 1997), and a javelin pointlodged and healed within a femur (described in Ca-passo et al., 1994). It is worth noting in passing thattrauma rates actually varied inversely with thepresence of weapons (see below); this may suggestthat, in burial contexts, weapons may have beenused as signs of wealth, leadership, or social central-ity rather than as reliable indicators of actual par-

ticipation in warfare or informal aggression (Robb,1997). Tibial periostitis was inversely related to to-tal goods, total pots, and presence of weaponry. Tib-ial periostitis in this group of males was almostcertainly caused by localized traumas rather than byinfectious disease, as it is frequently unilateral, isfar more common among males than females, and isusually unaccompanied by other signs of disease(Robb, 1994). Either direct traumas in the course ofwork regimes or stress fractures due to heavy walk-ing and running might be possible causes. The factthat there were numerous relationships betweenthese three skeletal features and various gravegoods whose P-value fell between 0.10–0.05 sug-gests a pattern of consistent associations betweenthese signs of stress and grave goods. This suggeststhat, in general, males buried with fewer gravegoods of all categories were more likely to sufferfrom trauma, periostitis, and Schmorl’s nodes.

In order to understand how pathological featuresvaried among social groups, the male sample wasexamined in further detail. Results were generallysimilar whether we grouped individuals in catego-ries according to pathologies and correlated thesewith grave goods or vice versa, and whether we usedmultivariate cluster analysis or simple cross-tabula-tion. For example, Table 4 shows how pathologiesvaried among groups defined by the presence of anygrave goods at all and of weaponry. Childhoodstress, stature, and cribra orbitalia did not differbetween groups defined by grave goods. However,adult health varied substantially. The 13 males bur-ied with no goods at all formed a discrete group withhigh incidences of Schmorl’s nodes, tibial periostitis,and trauma. Men buried without weapons but withother goods lay in the middle. At the other end of thehealth spectrum, men buried with weapons had the

TABLE 4. Variations in health within subgroups of males from Pontecagnano, mid-fifth–third centuries BC

A. Males with grave goods vs. males without grave goods

Males buried withno grave goods

(n 5 13)Males buried with

grave goods (n 5 42) P (test)

Stature (cm) 166.5 166.1 0.77 (ANOVA)Enamel hypoplasia

(% with .1 lesion)81.8 73.0 0.35 (x2)

Cribra orbitalia (% affected) 18.2 21.2 0.83 (x2)Schmorl’s nodes (% affected) 76.9 48.5 0.08 (x2; f2 5 0.066)Tibial periostitis (% affected) 69.2 27.0 0.01 (x2; f2 5 0.145)Trauma (% affected) 61.5 32.5 0.06 (x2; f2 5 0.065)

B. Males with no grave goods, with weapons, and with other goods

Males buried withno grave goods

(n 5 13)

Males buried withgrave goods but not

with weapons(n 5 26)

Males buried withweapons and/orarmor (n 5 16) P

Stature (cm) 166.5 166.1 166.0 0.96 (ANOVA)Enamel hypoplasia

(% with .1 lesion)81.8 65.2 85.8 0.32 (x2)

Cribra orbitalia (% affected) 18.2 15.0 30.8 0.54 (x2)Schmorl’s nodes (% affected) 76.9 59.1 27.3 0.048 (x2; v 5 0.364)Tibial periostitis (% affected) 69.2 33.3 15.4 0.015 (x2; v 5 0.411)Trauma (% affected) 61.5 30.8 35.7 0.17 (x2; v 5 0.259)


lowest rates of both tibial periostitis and Schmorl’snodes, and often had no pathologies at all, suggest-ing a higher general quality of life and less physicalstress.

Based upon this and similar analyses, we can thusperhaps define at least one subgroup with its ownconfiguration of health and grave goods, i.e., theno-goods-and-poor-health group. Interestingly, thisgroup is spatially segregated to some degree: 12of the 13 males with no grave goods are buriedin a small necropolis south of the ancient town(the proprieta Boccia-Maisto-Tascone-Di Dato. Thisnecropolis may have been at least partly for rural aswell as town inhabitants (Serritella, 1995). Othermale burials within this necropolis, and other con-temporary burials within other necropolises, wereburied with grave goods and display less likelihoodof having suffered Schmorl’s nodes, traumas, andtibial periostitis. This suggests that we are dealingwith a particular subgroup predominantly buriedwithin one cemetery, rather than with more generalchronological, spatial or social differences betweencemeteries. Interestingly, cluster analysis of a sub-group of these burials showed that muscle-markingscores varied between males buried with and with-out goods: males with goods showed more variabilityand more extreme scores in their upper limb (Robb,1998). One possible interpretation is that males bur-ied without goods may have been more likely toperform generalized manual labor rather than spe-cialized or skilled tasks.

DISCUSSION

The Pontecagnano cemetery data suggest threeconclusions. First, there need be no direct correspon-dence between funerary treatment and biologicalstatus. In general, the data analyzed here suggestthat people buried in different ways were indistin-guishable in terms of skeletal health; common pa-leopathological signs of stress did not even covaryamong themselves.

Why might this be so? Returning to our threepremises above, there are a number of possibilities.The sensitivity of the biological indicators availableskeletally may not be adequate to reveal fine differ-ences in lifestyle. This is likely to be the case, forinstance, with enamel hypoplasia, which was perva-sive throughout the sample. The archaeological evi-dence may not reflect economic status or differencesin lifestyle adequately (e.g., if the sample does notencompass the entire social spectrum, or if funerarytreatment does not clearly symbolize important di-mensions of lifestyle). Within the Italian Iron Age, itis a reasonable supposition that grave goods reflectwealth to some degree, but this need not mean thatthey reflect all biologically important dimensions ofsocial variability. Equally important, while Pon-tecagnano was a stratified society, higher and lowerclasses may have suffered from similar health risks.For instance, wealth in the ancient world may nothave brought isolation or relief from endemic or

epidemic diseases. Likewise, even if wealthierclasses ate a better diet, as long as poorer classes atean adequate diet the class difference in nutritionmay not have had a visible effect upon skeletalgrowth. These factors may explain the lack of corre-spondence especially between funerary treatmentand stature, enamel hypoplasia, and cribra orbita-lia.

The second conclusion, however, is that there isnonetheless some patterning to be detected; morecan be learned from analyzing skeletons and archae-ological contexts jointly than from each source alone.At Pontecagnano, the more complex pattern ofhealth among males may reflect a more complexdivision of male labor as opposed to female labor.The relatively distinct “no goods” category of malesapparently grew up under biological conditions sim-ilar to those of other males, within the limited res-olution of the skeletal indicators, but they livedadult lives with heavier physical stress, more risk ofperiostitis, and more risk of trauma. They may per-haps represent a socially distinct economic groupsuch as field laborers or urban manual laborers, or agroup defined by legal status such as slaves or freed-men, while biological variation in the rest of thegroup may be less clear because the social bound-aries involved were less sharp. We do not knowwhether the “no goods” group represents a socialclass whose members remained subordinate overmany generations, people who began life as every-body else but ended it in the laboring poor, an ethnicsubgroup with an economic specialization, slaves,rural laborers as opposed to town dwellers (a possi-bility suggested by the location of the small necropo-lis they are buried in; for a comparable case, seePetrone, 1993), or a subgroup living in economicallydepressed times. However, the osteological analysisfurnishes us at least with a starting point: some ofthese questions could be answered with further ar-chaeological, historical, and skeletal investigation.

Finally, this study emphasizes that skeletal anal-ysis must be carefully contextualized socially andhistorically. We are not saying that periostitis andSchmorl’s nodes are always better skeletal guides tosocial conditions than hypoplasia and stature;rather, which skeletal features emerge as sociallysignificant depends on the locally specific nature ofthe biological stresses and their social allocation.For instance, differential access to protein may bemore critical in New World situations where domes-tic animals were lacking; differential risk of diseaseis likely to become important only after substantialclass division has led to residential segregation; andsuperordinate status may sometimes lead to in-creased as well as lessened health risks. Moreover,our ability to correlate health and status will dependon the contextual specificities of the archaeologicaland skeletal evidence for each side of this equation.Whether or not this will create problems for broadcomparative analysis remains to be seen.

220 J. ROBB ET AL.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank the Soprintendenza Archeologica di Sal-erno and the staff of the Museo Nazionale dell’AgroPicentino for permission to transcribe and studytomb inventories from Pontecagnano. We also thankVitaliano Rossi and Marco Piccardi at the MuseoNazionale di Antropologia, Firenze, and Professor B.Chiarelli of the Istituto di Antropologia, Universitadi Firenze, for allowing us to work on the Pontecag-nano material and for helping us greatly in theprocess. Finally, three anonymous reviewers pro-vided thought-provoking comments.

LITERATURE CITED

Angel JL. 1984. Health as a crucial factor in the changes fromhunting to developed farming in the Eastern Mediterranean.In: Cohen M, Armelagos G, editors. Paleopathology at the ori-gins of agriculture. New York: Academic Press. p 51–74.

Beck LA, editor. 1995. Regional perspectives in mortuary analy-sis. New York: Plenum Press.

Becker MJ. 1993. Human sacrifice in Iron Age Italy: evidencefrom the “Tombe Principesche” numbers 926 and 928 at Pon-tecagnano (Salerno). Old World Archaeol Newslett 16:23–30.

Bietti Sestieri A. 1992. The Iron Age community of Osteriadell’Osa: a study of sociopolitical development in centralTyrhennian Italy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Binford L. 1972. Mortuary practices: their study and their poten-tial. Am Antiq 36:6–29.

Blalock HM. 1979. Social statistics, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. p 241.

Borgognini Tarli S, Canci A, Francalacci P, Repetto E. 1992. Unapproccio antropologico integrato alla ricostruzione delle con-dizioni di vita e del popolamento in Italia durante la media Etadel Bronzo. Rassegna Archeol 10:593–601.

Brown JA. 1995. On mortuary analysis—with special reference tothe Saxe-Binford research program. In: LA Beck, editor. Re-gional approaches to mortuary analysis. New York: PlenumPress. p 3–26.

Buikstra J, Ubelaker D. 1994. Standards for data collection fromhuman skeletal remains. Fayetteville: Arkansas Archaeologi-cal Survey.

Capasso L, di Domenicantonio L, di Tota G, Scarsini C. 1994.Bronze javelin point in a femur from the necropolis of Pontecag-nano (Salerno, Southern Italy). Homo 45:530.

Cencetti S. 1989. La necropoli di Pontecagnano (Salerno): studioantropologico e paleodemografico di un campione del V–IV sec.a.C. B.A. thesis, Universita di Firenze.

Cerchiai L. 1990. Le officine etrusco-corinzie di Pontecagnano.Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale.

Cohen MN. 1989. Health and the rise of civilization. New Haven:Yale University Press.

Cohen MN. 1995. The osteological paradox reconsidered. CurrAnthropol 35:629–637.

Cowgill GL. 1977. The trouble with significance tests and whatwe can do about it. Am Antiq 42:350–368.

Cox M, Mays S, editors. 2000. Human osteology in anthropolog-ical and forensic perspective. London: Greenwich Medical Me-dia.

d’Agostino B. 1974. Il mondo periferico della Magna Grecia. In:d’Agostino B, Arias PE, Colonna G, editors. Popoli e civiltadell’Italia antica. Rome: Biblioteca di Storia Patria. p 177–272.

d’Agostino B. 1982. L’ideologia funeraria nell’eta del ferro inCampania. In: Gnoli G, Vernant J-P, editors. La mort, les mortsdans les societes anciennes. Cambridge and Paris: CambridgeUniversity Press/Editions de la Maison des Sciences del’Homme. p 203–220.

d’Agostino B, Gastaldi P. 1988. Pontecagnano II: la necropoli delPicentino. I. Le tombe della Prima Eta del Ferro. Naples: Isti-tuto Orientali di Napoli.

De Natale S. 1992. Pontecagnano: la necropoli di S. Antonio (prop.ECI). II. Le tombe della Prima Eta del Ferro. Naples: IstitutoUniversitario Orientale.

Fornaciari G, Brogi M, Balducci E. 1984. Patologia dentaria degliinumati di Pontecagnano (Salerno), VII–IV sec. a.C. ArcheolAnt Etn 114:73–93.

Fornaciari G, Brudi M, Balducci E. 1986. Dental pathology of theskeletal remains of Pontecagnano, Salerno, Italy: 7th–4th c.B.C. Ossa 12:9–31.

Fredericksen M. 1974. Campania. Rome: British School.Germana F, Fornaciari G. 1992. Trapanazioni, craniotomie e

traume cranici in Italia dalla preistoria all’eta moderna. Pisa:Giardini.

Goodman A, Rose J. 1991. Dental enamel hypoplasias as indica-tors of nutritional stress. In: Kelley M, Larsen C, editors. Ad-vances in dental anthropology. New York: Wiley-Liss. p 279–294.

Hatch J, Willey P. 1974. Stature and status in Dallas society.Tenn Archaeol 30:107–131.

Haviland WA. 1967. Stature at Tikal, Guatemala: implicationsfor ancient Maya demography and social organization. AmAntiq 32:316–325.

Hengen O. 1971. Cribra orbitalia: pathogenesis and probableetiology. Homo 22:57–75.

Jurmain R. 1998. Stories from the skeleton: behavioral recon-struction in osteoarchaeology. Amsterdam: Gordon and Breach.

Krogman W, Iscan M. 1986. The human skeleton in forensicmedicine, 2nd ed. Springfield: C.C. Thomas.

Larsen CS. 1997. Bioarchaeology: interpreting behavior from thehuman skeleton. New York: Cambridge University Press. p13–19.

Lombardi Pardini E, Polosa D, Pardini E. 1984. Gli inumati diPontecagnano (Salerno), VII–VI sec.a.C. Archeol Ant Etn 114:3–62.

Lombardi Pardini E, Fulciniti G, Pardini E. 1992. Somatologia,dimorfismo sessuale e struttura biologica di una popolazionecampana del VII–IV sec. a.C. Archeol Ant Etn 121:3–43.

Lovejoy C, Meindl R, Pryzbeck T, Mensforth R. 1985. Chronolog-ical metamorphosis of the auricular surface of the ilium: a newmethod for the determination of adult skeletal age at death.Am J Phys Anthropol 68:15–28.

Mallegni F, Brogi M, Balducci E. 1984. Paleodontologia dei rep-erti umani di Pontecagnano (Salerno), VII–IV sec. a.C. ArcheolAnt Etn 114:63–93.

Meindl R, Lovejoy C. 1985. Ectocranial suture closure: a revisedmethod for the determination of skeletal age at death based onthe lateral-anterior sutures. Am J Phys Anthropol 68:57–66.

Morris I. 1992. Death-ritual and social structure in classicalantiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ortner D, Putschar W. 1981. Identification of pathological condi-tions in human skeletal remains. Washington, DC: Smithso-nian Institution Press.

O’Shea JM. 1984. Mortuary variability. New York: AcademicPress.

Pallottino M. 1991. History of earliest Italy. Ann Arbor: Univer-sity of Michigan Press.

Pardini E, Rossi V, Innocenti F, Stefanin G, Fulgaro A, Patara S.1982. Gli inumati di Pontecagnano (Salerno), V–IV sec. a.C.Archeol Ant Etn 112:281–333.

Pardini E, Mannucci P, Lombardi Pardini E. 1983. Sex ratio, etamedia di vita, mortalita differenziale per eta e per sesso in unapopolazione campana vissuta a Pontecagnano, Salerno, neisecoli VII–IV a.C. Archeol Ant Etn 113:268–295.

Parker Pearson M. 1982. Mortuary practices, society and ideol-ogy: an ethnoarchaeological study. In: Hodder I, editor. Sym-bolic and structural archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-versity Press. p 99–113.

Petrone PP. 1993. Schiavitu, stress di attivita lavorativa, malnu-trizione: condizioni socio-culturali quali principali causi di mor-bidita e mortalita in popolazioni d’eta imperiale dell’areaflegrea (Napoli, Campania). Paper presented at the 10th Con-gress of Italian Anthropologists, Pisa.

Petrone PP. 1995. Analisi paleodemigrafica e paleopatologicadelle tombe in proprieta Rossomando. In: Serritella A, editor.


Pontecagnano II.3. Le nuove aree di necropoli del IV e III sec.a.C. Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale. p 129–134.

Powell M. 1988. Status and health in prehistory: a case study ofthe Moundville chiefdom. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Insti-tution Press.

Powell M. 1991. Ranked status and health in the Mississippianchiefdom at Moundville. In: Powell M, Bridges P, Mires A,editors. What mean these bones? Studies in Southeastern bio-archaeology. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press. p 22–51.

Robb J. 1994. Skeletal signs of activity in the Italian MetalAges: methodological and interpretative notes. Hum Evol9:215–229.

Robb J. 1997. Violence and gender in early Italy. In: Frayer D,Martin D, editors. Troubled times: osteological and archaeolog-ical evidence of violence. New York: Gordon and Breach. p108–141.

Robb J. 1998. The interpretation of skeletal muscle sites: a sta-tistical approach. Int J Osteoarchaeol 8:363–377.

Rose J. 1985. Gone to a better land. Fayetteville: Arkansas Ar-chaeological Survey.

Saxe AA. 1970. Social dimensions of mortuary practices. Ph.D.dissertation, University of Michigan.

Scarsini C, Bigazzi R. 1995. Studio antropologico dei resti umani.In: Serritella A, editor. Pontecagnano II.3. Le nuove aree dinecropoli del IV e III sec. a.C. Naples: Istituto UniversitarioOrientale. p 135–146.

Schoeninger M. 1979. Diet and status at Chalcatzingo: someempirical and technical aspects of strontium analysis. Am JPhys Anthropol 51:295–310.

Serritella A. 1995. Pontecagnano II.3. Le nuove aree di necropolidel IV e III sec. a.C. Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale.

Shanks M. 1996. Classical archaeology of Greece: experiences ofthe discipline. London: Routledge.

Skinner M, Goodman A. 1992. Anthropological uses of develop-mental defects of enamel. In: Saunders S, Katzenberg M, edi-

tors. Skeletal biology of past peoples: research methods. NewYork: Wiley-Liss. p 153–173.

Sonego F. 1991. Lo stato di salute a Pontecagnano in un periododi “crisi” (VII-1 meta V secolo a.C.): analisi di indicatori schelet-rici e dentari. Tesi di Laurea, Istituto di Antropologia, Univer-sita di Firenze.

Sonego F, Scarsini C. 1994. Indicatori scheletrici e dentari dellostato di salute e delle condizioni di vita a Pontecagnano (Sal-erno) nel VII–V sec. a.C. Bull Paletn Ital 85:1–25.

Stuart-Macadam P. 1989. Nutritional deficiency diseases. In:Kennedy K, Iscan M, editors. Reconstruction of life from theskeleton. New York: Liss. p 201–222.

Thomas DH. 1986. Refiguring anthropology, 2nd ed. ProspectHeights: Waveland. p 256, 344.

Trotter M, Gleser GC. 1952. Estimation of stature from the bones ofAmerican whites and Negroes. Am J Phys Anthropol 10:463–514.

Trotter M, Gleser GC. 1958. A re-evaluation of estimation basedon measurements of stature taken during life and of long bonesafter death. Am J Phys Anthropol 16:79–123.

Ucko P. 1969. Ethnography and archaeological interpretation offunerary remains. World Archaeol 1:262–280.

Vida Navarro MC. 1992. Warriors and weavers: sex and gender inEarly Iron Age graves from Pontecagnano. J Accordia Res Ctr3:67–100.

White CD, Healy PF, Schwarcz HP. 1993. Intensive agriculture,social status and Maya diet at Pacbitun, Belize. J AnthropolRes 49:347–375.

Wilkinson RG, Norelli RJ. 1981. A biocultural analysis of socialorganization at Monte Alban. Am Antiq 46:743–758.

Wood JW, Milner GR. 1994. The osteological paradox reconsid-ered—reply. Curr Anthropol 35:631–637.

Wood JW, Milner GR, Harpending H, Weiss K. 1992. The osteo-logical paradox: problems in inferring prehistoric health fromskeletal samples. Curr Anthropol 33:343–370.

Workshop of European Anthropologists. 1980. Recommendationsfor age and sex diagnoses of skeletons. J Hum Evol 9:517–549.

222 J. ROBB ET AL.

social “status” and biological “status”: a comparison of grave goods and skeletal indicators...

Documents