K.A.R. Kennedy, J.R. Lukacs & V.N. Misra (ed.). The biological anthropology of human skeletal remains from Bhimbetka, central India.

K.A.R. Kennedy, J.R. Lukacs & V.N. Misra (ed.). The biological anthropology of human skeletal remains from Bhimbetka, central India. xvii+107 pages, 39 figures, 15 tables. 2002. Pune: Indian Societyfor Prehistoric & Quaternary quaternary/qua��ter��nary/ (kwah��ter-nar?e)1. fourth in order.2. containing four elements or groups.qua��ter��nar��yadj.1. Consisting of four; in fours. Studies; hardback Rs250, paperbackRs190. Bhimbetka represents one of the most important prehistoricrock-shelter and cave complexes in India. More than 1000 rock-sheltersand caves have been counted over an area extending only 2 sq. km, mostproviding evidence for human activity in the form of extraordinary rockart and rich archaeological remains. A total of 16 of the most promisingsites have been excavated, yielding significant Palaeolithic,Mesolithic, Chalcolithic, Iron Age and Historic deposits. This volume isspecifically geared towards developing an understanding of the humanremains in eight of the excavated sites. The skeletal remains wereexcavated by different teams beginning in the early 1970s, resulting inthis synthetic bio-anthropological treatment some 30 years later. The Introduction of the book summarizes the history of excavationsconducted at Bhimbetka, briefly reviewing chronological sequences andmajor archaeological findings. From the outset it is obvious that thereis uncertainty in assigning clear relative and absolute ages to some ofthe skeletal remains found in various shelters and stratigraphic stra��tig��ra��phy?n.The study of rock strata, especially the distribution, deposition, and age of sedimentary rocks.strat contexts. The remainder of the book is divided into three parts,Archaeological Context In archaeology, not only the context (physical location) of a discovery is a significant fact, but the formation of the context is as well. An archaeological context is an event in time which has been preserved in the archaeological record. , Biological Anthropology and Summary &Conclusions. Part 1 describes the archaeological and depositionalcontext of the burials, making good use of illustrations and photographsto demonstrate the location and layout of the skeletal remains. Part 2forms the empirical heart of this book, each of the three chaptersdescribing the skeletal biology of the burials uncovered by variousexcavators. The osteological observations and metrical met��ri��cal?adj.1. Of, relating to, or composed in poetic meter: metrical verse; five metrical units in a line.2. Of or relating to measurement. analyses in thethree chapters were separately undertaken and described by threebiological anthropologists (S.C. Tiwari, John R. Lukacs ''This article is about the anthropologist. For the historian see John Lukacs.John R. Lukacs (born March 1, 1947) is an American anthropologist. He holds a Ph.D. from Cornell University. , Kenneth A.R.Kennedy). Although the skeletal sample was limited, the chapters includesections on bone element representation, bone preservation, bonemeasurements, stature estimates, sex and age determinations andmorphology. Dental stresses are among the interesting findings, withincidences of enamel hypoplasia hypoplasia/hy��po��pla��sia/ (-pla��zhah) incomplete development or underdevelopment of an organ or tissue.hypoplas��ticenamel hypoplasia , severe occlusal wear and tooth loss.Pathologies included a probable case of osteomyelitis osteomyelitis(ŏs'tēōmī'əlī`tĭs), infection of the bone and bone marrow. Direct infection of bone usually occurs through open fractures, penetrating wounds, or surgical operations. and a parietal parietal/pa��ri��e��tal/ (pah-ri��e-t'l)1. of or pertaining to the walls of a cavity.2. pertaining to or located near the parietal bone.pa��ri��e��taladj.1. lesion characteristic of a treponemal trep��o��ne��maladj.Relating to Treponema. disease. While the threebiological anthropologists overlap in common approaches and methods,there are certain differences in skeletal reporting, probably owing toboth preservation conditions and the depth to which each of the analystsconsidered study appropriate. A single synthetic chapter, only a slim seven pages in length,forms the third part of the book. Two main conclusions are reached inthe analysis of the Bhimbetka skeletons; first, that the burials showconsiderable biological diversity, and secondly, that the latePalaeolithic to Historic sequence provides evidence for populationcontinuity. In defending these conclusions, Lukacs and Kennedy squeezeout as much contextual information as is possible from the limitedsample of Bhimbetka skeletal remains. Drawing on their excellentfamiliarity with the biological evidence of South Asia, Lukacs andKennedy note that tooth-crown area for Mesolithic peoples of Bhimbetkawas relatively small. This leads them to conclude that cultural anddietary models (as opposed to environmental and genetic factors) are themost likely explanation for tooth-size variations, although thisargument is not elaborated upon here. Although only available from twoBhimbetka skeletons, a more involved comparative review is undertakenfor stature variation. The two Bhimbetka skeletons from which staturewas deducible are said to be relatively short, while their sexualdimorphism Sexual dimorphismAny difference, morphological or behavioral, between males and females of the same species. In many animals, the sex of an individual can be determined at a glance. falls within the middle range of values in comparativeprehistoric samples. The stature information is inferred to beconsistent with data that indicates an adaptive trend towards shorterstature found in South Asian populations undergoing the transition fromforaging lifestyles to food-producing societies. Although this work is a much-needed publication on the biologicalanthropology of an important archaeological site complex, there are somesignificant weaknesses. Perhaps due to the fact that the Bhimbetkaskeletal remains were recovered in different excavations, andsubsequently studied by three different biological anthropologists, thebook is not an easy read, and it is sometimes difficult to follow thepresentation within and between chapters. The book is not an in-depthcross-comparative study, but rather, it is a very brief report, theentire work confined to only 107 pages inclusive of text, figures,tables and references. There are some unusual conventions, including thefact that chapters are written by only five contributors, three of whomserve as both chapter contributors and book editors. Chapters by some ofthe Indian colleagues were noted to be excerpts from field notes, whichprobably explains some condensed descriptions and rough prose, includingthe terse chapter by V.S. Wakankar, published 14 years after his death. While the editors should be applauded in pulling together abio-anthropological synthesis so long after the conclusion of theexcavations, this book will probably be disappointing to those who havewished to see more in-depth archaeological and bioarchaeological studiesemerge from the Bhimbetka excavations. It is likely to appeal to arelatively limited professional group of researchers, particularly thosewho are interested in assembling information about what was found atBhimbetka, and those who are specifically interested in the biologicalanthropology of prehistoric populations of South Asia.MICHAEL D. PETRAGLIALeverhulme Centre for Human Evolutionary StudiesDepartment of Biological AnthropologyUniversity of Cambridgemp341@cam.ac.uk