Hosek Lauren, Robb John
Department of Anthropology, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY 13244, USA.
Department of Archaeology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3DZ, UK.
Bioarchaeol Int. 2019;3(1):1-15. doi: 10.5744/bi.2019.1005.
Osteobiography provides a rich basis for understanding the past, but its conceptual framework has not been outlined systematically. It stands in conceptual opposition to a traditional statistical approach to bioarchaeology modeled upon clinical studies in biomedicine, but is interdependent with it. As such, its position mirrors those of clinical case histories as opposed to statistical studies, participant-observation ethnography as opposed to quantitative sociology, and microhistory and biography as opposed to quantitative history. Such disciplinary comparisons provide a framework for exploring the strengths and weaknesses of osteobiography. It is not merely a tool for engagingly illustrating the "typical" life history as established statistically. Rather, it allows us to understand issues that population studies cannot explore. These include both analytical directions (exploring the complexity of deeply layered data, understanding the role of contingency in human lives, integrating osteological and cultural evidence) and philosophical directions (the interaction of material and conceptual factors in the creation of human bodies, embodiment, the experience of time).
骨骼传记为理解过去提供了丰富的依据，但其概念框架尚未得到系统阐述。它在概念上与基于生物医学临床研究的生物考古学传统统计方法相对立，但又与之相互依存。因此，它的地位反映了临床病例史相对于统计研究、参与观察民族志相对于定量社会学、微观史和传记相对于定量历史的地位。这种学科比较为探索骨骼传记的优缺点提供了一个框架。它不仅仅是一种生动展示统计学上确立的“典型”生活史的工具。相反，它使我们能够理解群体研究无法探究的问题。这些问题既包括分析方向（探索深度分层数据的复杂性、理解偶然性在人类生活中的作用、整合骨骼学和文化证据），也包括哲学方向（物质和概念因素在人体形成过程中的相互作用、体现、时间体验）。
