Is the body in pieces at peace?

The objectification of the human body in the practice of osteoarchaeology

Alexandra Ion, University of Bucharest

Introduction
Few of the students and teachers that pass through the University of Medicine and Pharmacy yard during the academic year, know that in the furthest corner of the precinct yet there is another building. The back entrance bears a small plaque with the name: The Francisc I. Rainer Anthropological Institute1. As soon as one passes through the door and climbs a stair, one finds oneself in a main lobby, which has all the walls covered in glass doors cabinets which have on display human crania- one of the largest colections in Europe. Following one of the corridors one enters the Paleoanthropology laboratory. It is here were a fascinating process is happening: the transformation of the remains of once a living human being to a specimen destined to be studied as part of the osteoarchaeological paradigm. This is a paper that intends to address this issue, to explore the way in which the dead human body is enacted as part of the osteoarchaeological analysis of human bones. Just as a parenthesis, through osteoarchaeology is meant the study of skeletal remains from archaeological sites (Roberts 2006, 418). I propose a reflective approach of the way in which (current, western) osteoarchaeologists define, manipulate and talk about the human body. For this I follow step by step scientists at work and deconstruct their actions. By putting under scrutiny the procedures and prescriptions they follow, it explores the assumptions and choices they make when studying a human being. It is my goal to make explict what otherwise remains hidden in the scientific narrative and is taken for granted.

For a general presentation of the Institute see: http://www.antropologia.ro/

Such a study can bring an original perspective in the material culture studies, as it is focused on a dynamic process of knowledge production in which the analysis starts from bones and the meaning moves throughout between indivdual and object. This endeavour presents the results of my dissertation from University of Sheffield.

Theoretical framework
This work is part of the wider area of sociological studies of scientific practice . The analysis moves between what Knorr Cetina (1977, 669) calls "the context of discovery and the context of justification". My analysis follows the theory of social constructivism regarding the idea that the way the object of knowledge is viewed is a consequence of its investigation. The laboratory is not a space where reality is observed and revealed. Rather, it is a place where one possible interpretation of this world is performed. I should stress that the analysis draws on a research methodology devised by several researchers that focused on the constructive nature of scientific activities, such as Latour (1987, 2005), Latour and Woolgar (1986), Knorr-Cetina (1977, 1981), as well as the ethnomethodological method proposed by Garfinkel (1967). I was also influenced by Michel Foucault with his concept of discursive practice and Annemarie Moll with her studies of body ontology in medicine. To understand the way meaning is constructed in practice I replace the idea of an object that waits passively to be studied in, with an approach that takes into account all the factors that are part of the process of knowledge production: scientists, the dead human body, instruments, procedures, and environment. The object of the analysis is a case study represented by the analysis of 20 human bones discovered at the archaeological site Crcea (Romania) (an analysis done by me). The study of these bones lasted from May 2009 until November 2009, involved an intense process, several experts and a wide range of information and instruments were brought into play.

The text will be divided in two parts: firstly I describe each step of the analysis that took place in the laboratory, focusing on three aspects: what is the goal of that action, how is it accomplished (the instruments and resources used to mediate data acquisition, as well as the way it is represented from a linguistic and non-linguistic point of view- see Tibbets 1988, 118) (Hacking 1992, 29), and what type of human body do we end up with. this is followed by a critical commentary of what happened. Each step in the process of analysis is going to be described,

Case study
The first thing is the discovery of the bones in the archaeological site. The archaeologist Marin Nica (1976) recorded that in 1971 he discovered materials from prehistoric , Roman and medieval times on both banks of the Crcea River. He interpreted the prehistoric material, among which there were several human bones, as being the debris of a settlement.

Let us begin by highlighting the assumptions embedded in the way Crcea archaeological excavation was designed, assumptions which eventually defined an understanding of the human bones as signifiers of the past: the excavations deals with material remains of the past; that these material remains can be deciphered; their study will reveal some image of the past that can be objectified by reference to the material; that the process of deciphering must employ an established methodology. This idea of the past organized as a structured pattern of processes is synthetised and expressed through the way the bones were recorded and labelled. for example: Crcea 1971, L.V., SI, square 6, pit 3 (1). Similar to a mapping system, the human bones were introduced in an abstract domain of spatial, temporal and cultural coordinates in the hope that these will provide a setting for their meaning: they were linked to a specific moment in the history of the settlement- a context of human activity (pit, a ditch etc.); a type of past human activity (they might be funerary remains, dwelling debris, waste area)., as well as to

the spatial organization of the excavation (section, square); What is happening is that the dynamic processes of life and decay got to be described as a series of static relationships. After this preliminary step, the findings from the site were divided by their material attributes (bones, ceramics, stone obj. etc.) and sent to the corresponding specialist for further study. As a consequence, the human bones, were sent to be studied by an osteoarchaeologist. Hence, the raw materials were taken as natural and given, and shaped the definition of specialist studies. In order to put it under scrutiny, the universe was fragmented and deconstructed based on so called "natural categories". In the same time "the external physical attributes of things were seen as exhausting their meaning" (Tilley 1994, 67). As a consequence, the bones are introduced in a double framework of understanding- as signifiers of past agency and their materiality is but a means of exhausting the meaning. Given this, the bones were moved to the Anthropological Institute. Here at first,
the bones were arranged in small standard wooden boxes on two shelves of a glass door cabinet in the main lobby of the institute. This cabinet housed only human bones discovered in Neolithic contexts.

Hence, the bones become the fragments of an archive, a stratigraphic one. They were grouped in virtue of being discovered in the same site and coming from the same broad historical and cultural period (Neolithic). What happens is that these individuals were taken out of the funerary and interpersonal context within which they were once known and became for the scientific world markers, standing for and representing an archaeological culture. The individuals became part of a series, a sequence, collected for growing knowledge. Furthermore, by following the analytical model devised by the archaeologist (through the recording- as they arrange the bones according to the info. written on the arch. label), the osteoarchaeologist job is seen just as an annex: Similar to the scaffolding raised in order to build a house, the archaeological observations link the bones to a specific sequence in the history of the site, providing the matrix for knowledge (with the goal to see what type of cultural process can be inferred). the osteoarchaeologist

just needs to fill in with details this larger narrative that has already been written, namely the individual's biographies that once inhabited this structure. The last consequence deals with putting the bones on display. As it is not that common to find bones in settlements, especially that they are old and fragmentary, they were thought more interesting, chosen to be kept on display in the main lobby and not stored in the attic or the backrooms. As a result, their meaning constantly changes as they circulate from the dead as ancestor, to the forgotten, to the specimens for scientific knowledge to become curiosities on display. The consequence of this is the illusion of being able to have a voyeuristic glimpse of the past. From here the discussio n can be open in multiple directions, related to such a voyeuristic attitude towards collected human specimens from colonial settings versus medical specimens or contemporary bodies. From this context I took the bones out in may 2009 and moved them in the laboratory. it is here where the ordering of the world was going to continue, through (Knorr Cetina 1992; Latour and Woolgar 1986; Livingston 2003; Ophir and Shapin 1991) mobilising the resources deemed necessary for an osteo. analysis - the lighting (necessary as the examination is based mostly on visual assessment), a controlled environment that would secure a safe analysis of the bones and prevent their damage. The instruments necessary for the study were organised around the bones: the writing materials, measuring instruments, reference materials.
The first thing was to create an inventory of bones: what is present, and how complete they are.

The purpose of this stage was to move from the fragments and to identify the individuals present in the assemblage, and delineate how much of their skeleton was present. All this would allow one to make inferences about past agencies that have worked the complete skeleton down to the fragments now on the laboratory bench (burial selection, burial environment etc.). In the same time, it evaluates the elements available to asses sex, age, pathology. There are 2 important aspects of these procedures that need to be highlighted:

Firstly, The osteoarchaeologist engages with the material, breaks down the individual in its constituent parts, and each of them is separately named, quantified, put under scrutiny to ensure that parts of an individual are taken as signifiers of both the whole individual and past agencies of transformation. The analysis is designed by comparing the bones against anatomical standard knowledge, mediated through anatomical textbooks. An individual is thought of as being composed out of 206 bones, to which muscles attached etc.. What this way of analysing does is taking an image of the human body seen as a standard mechanism, with functional proprieties (the model constructed by the medical teaching of dissecting bodies). We find ourselves confronting the body as machine, made up of numerous parts, which have to be identified so that the whole makes sense . Secondly, knowledge is produced between 2 media: personal and physical experience (by handling, twisting and turning the bones), to data inscribed in standar d recording sheets (taken out of the normative guidelines for data recording). In the process, the researcher introduces literary resources, making reference to a world of literature published outside the laboratory (see Latour and Woolgar 1986). The outco me makes the results comparable one to the other, the interpretation being made to a common standard.
From here, the analysis moves on to the next step: establishing the sex and age of the individuals. To do this, the skeletal features that "vary by age and sex" (Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994, 15) were recorded. The morphology of these features was described, assigned into a certain stage, from 1 to 5 and then, based on known reference samples they were translated into a sex (male or female) and age intervals.

The target of this stage is to get one step closer to understanding past cultural practices- age and sex are seen as indicators for a potential positive selection in funerary practices, or different lifestyles (only males, females were chosen etc.); also, it allows the scientist to build health and demographic profiles of the population. However, the identity of an individual gets to be framed in biological terms. The methodology is used with the purpose of devising a classifying system based on visual observations of morphological characteristics (Sommerlund 2006, 913) (such as sex and age), following the tradition started by Linnaeus and Darwin. By following such a scheme, what becomes important is to know what the place of the studied human is among a population. This translates in the end

in a quantitative evaluation of a population profile: how many of the individuals in one category display a certain trait? The ontologic consequence of choosing to work in such a materialistic framework of analysis is that the body is seen as distinct from the emotional/spiritual attributes of a once living individual. The gender becomes sex (measurable and investigable), chronological age (a dynamic process, of growth and development) is to become biological age (quantifiable). It enforces a contemporary perspective over what sex and age is (biological criteria), by introducing the individual is standard categories constructed in a modern laboratory and projected onto the past. Instead, an exploration into the way in which these attributes are shaped in a living person in relationship with the rest of the archaeological material culture could prove fruitful. From a different point of view, the interpretation of the morphologic characteristics is done according to a deductive model, following previous experience that is based on contemporary reference sample. What is forgotten is that they are the result of such a comparative processes. Even though they start as descriptive in nature (describing a biologic trait), they are turned into having an explanatory value (e.g. these bony landmarks are the ones that turn a pile of bones into a male). They get to dictate what an individual is, when in reality what turns them into a sex/age category is the agreed procedure (the reference data and method of investigation, which are relative to population and researcher).
When it came down to understanding the breaks, or cracks in the bones, their diagnostic was harderwere they recent or ancient, whether natural or result of cultural process. When would a rugged margin of the bone or a hole in it become a fracture? Or the mark of a blow?

The Crcea osteologic sample is an exceptional one, as most of the individuals are represented just through some of the skeletal elements, in most parts crania . I was
interested to understand what happened to the initial bodies of the individuals? thus, i pute them under scrutiny of a magnifying glass, used reference materials and to establish certainty I

consulted several times with Andrei Soficaru who brought in his previous experience for working with fragmentary human bones, as well as with Adrian Balasescu, an expert in animal bones (hence butchering techniques).
7

What all this procedures implied is that there are hidden details in the bones that need to be brought to life. Similar to an archaeological excavation, the osteoarchaeologist unearths them. What happened however was a process of ascribing meaning to a number of features- through the use of reference materials that incorporate natural sciences knowledge and forensic experience, the marks were turned into signs, were given a new meaning: that of a cut, mark of a root etc. Furthermore, theses agencies were given historical meaning, by comparison with known cases from archaeological sites and were interpreted as evidence of interpersonal violence and cannibalism. The past was not only understood by referencing the present, but the present also provided the criteria for discriminating among unknown variables and turning them into signs. By applying "invariant regularities" (Wylie 2002, 119), the relationship between bones and cultural processes is one that has a quantifiable character. The facts were reinforced in a final phase when they got published (Ion et al. 2009), made public. and a whole apparatus for constructing legitimacy was brought into play.

Conclusion
My paper was meant to say a "story" whose heroes are 20 bones from Carcea and the osteoarchaeologists studying them. I intended to reveal "the specificity of the process of enculturation" that the bones undergoe when put under scrutiny as part of the osteoarch. analysis (Knorr Cetina 1992, 118). In essence, the epistemological assumption embeded in the way the procedures were designed and engaged with the material remains is that there is one possible image of the past (the way it is represented by the archaeological site), and the purpose of the research methodology is to be applied co rrectly in order to reveal that image. This idea of a standard perspective of what the past is implicitly assumed, shared among all the specialists involved and is constructed by sharing the same framework of analysis. In the end it produces what is deemed as a coherent narrative, an objective one, independent de contextul n care a fost creat. This understanding of the material further ties to ontological assumptions: the human bones or any other findings are out there,

buried in the soil and they await the researcher to reveal what they signify. What happens in the laboratory is that the human bones undergo a series of procedures in which they are given various meanings: signifiers of past agency (depositional sequence, cultural practices such as funerary practices) / individuals / a category of population. The result is a narrative constructed in the laboratory which gets to be mistaken with a historic past as "it was". This situation which does not allow a scientist to bring into the analysis a different point of view regarding how the past should be written (as their analysis will be rejected) is a form of imposing a dominant policy on the creative process. In the laboratory, scientists follow an empiricist perspective through which they describe, measure, quantify the human bones, in the end turning them into data that become the topic of anthropological reports or articles. What is important is that in the end what is lost from the practice and discourse is the humanity, as well as the speculative nature of the process. By being aware and making explicit such ontologic and epistemologic assumptions brought on the way one can re-evaluate the conceptual basis of the narrative. It also has the potential of critically evaluating our perspective and relationship to what we deem is "reality", history and individual. how are they shaped by the research methodology? Such questions are highly relevant for the way in which humanity (the way of being in the world of an individual) is perceived in the contemporary world. As scientists shape the public's view on the human body, they have a responsibility to justify the value of their research. In the end, I propose a re-evaluation of the discipline's role in the contemporary role - are we studying human beings or bones?

Selected references
Foucault, M. 1977. Discipline and Punish. London: Allen Lane. Foucault, M. 1989. The archaeology of knowledge. London; New York: Routledge. Garfinkel, H. 1967. Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Hacking, I. 1992. The self vindication of the laboratory sciences. In Pickering, A. (ed.), Science as practice and culture, 29-64. Chicago; London: University of Chicago Press. Ion, A., Soficaru, A. D., Miritoiu, N 2009. Dismembered human remains from the "Neolithic" Crcea site (Romania). Studii de Preistorie 6: 47-80. Knorr Cetina, K. 1977. Producing and reproducing knowledge: Descriptive or constructive? Toward a model of research production. Social Science Information 16: 669-696. Knorr-Cetina, K. 1981. The manufacture of knowledge: an essay on the constructivist and contextual nature of science. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Knorr Cetina, K. 1992. The couch, the cathedral and the laboratory. On the relationship between experiment and laboratory in science. In Pickering, A. (ed.), Science as practice and culture, 113-138. Chicago; London: University of Chicago Press. Latour, B. 1999. Pandoras hope. Essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Latour, B. 2005. Reassembling the social: an introduction to Actor-network theory. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. Latour, B. and Woolgar, S. 1986. Laboratory Life. The construction of scientific facts. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Livingston, D. L. 2003. Putting science in its place, geographies of scientific knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Moll, A. 2002. The body multiple: ontology in medical practice. Durham, London: Duke University Press. Nica, M. 1976. Crcea, cea mai veche aezare neolitic de la sud de Carpai. Studii si Cercetari de Istorie Veche si Arheologie 27: 435-463.
10

Ophir, A. and Shapin, S. 1991. The place of knowledge: a methodological survey. Science in Context 4: 3-21. Roberts, C. 2006. A view from afar: Bioarchaeology in Britain. In Buikstra, J. and Beck, L. A. (eds.) Bioarchaeology: The Contextual Analysis of Human Remains, 417440. San Diego, London, Burlington: Elsevier. Sommerlund, J. 2006. Classifying microorganisms: The multiplicity of classifications and research practices in molecular microbial ecology. Social Studies of Science 36: 909-928. Tibbetts, P. 1988. Representation and the realist-constructionist controversy. Human Studies 11: 117-132. Tilley, C. 1994. Interpreting material culture. In Pearce, S. M. (ed.) Interpreting objects and collections, 67-74. London: Routledge. Wylie, A. 2002. Thinking from things. Essays in the Philosophy of Archaeology. Berkeley: University of California Press.

11