9 Understanding Bio-Archaeological Remains : Archaeo- anthropology

Veena Mushrif-Tripathy Pune

Objectives

• Understanding the role of skeletal anthropology in archaeology and knowing bygone population
• Osteoarchaeology, various types of disposal of the dead, human skeletal analysis, bio-cultural aspects, and palaeopathology

This chapter deals with the relevance of anthropology and its branches to archaeology of human populations. The role of osteoarchaeology is the main focus of this chapter. It deals with the human skeletal remains found from findings from excavations in India, Sri Lanka and Pakistan. The latter part attempts to highlight the use of skeletal analysis to understand the biological and cultural aspects of ancient populations. Further, it also discusses how application of new techniques and methods of palaeopathology helps in generating new knowledge of past human populations.

1.  Introduction

The word ‘anthropology’, derived from the Greek stem anthropo – (man) and the noun ending –logy (science), means ‘the science of humans’. Anthropologists study humans and all their activities. The discipline of anthropology deals with humankind in its entirety and aims to produce logical generalizations about the behavior of people around the world and throughout time.

Anthropology follows a holistic perspective, meaning that through cross-cultural comparison we can recognize both unity and diversity among living and dead populations across the world.

2.    Anthropology has four fields of specialization

• Biological Anthropology – studies the emergence of humans and their evolution, as well as how and why contemporary human populations vary biologically.
• Archaeology – studies material remains in order to describe and explain human behavior
• Linguistic Anthropology – studies the origin and social context of speech and languages.
• Cultural Anthropology – studies cultures from the present and recent past to understand patterns of thought and action.
• Ethnography – an in-depth, descriptive study of a culture.

  Physical or Biological anthropology studies the biological aspects of humans (i.e. humans, as a biological species). Physical anthropology is divided into two main fields: the study of humans as a product of evolutionary process (also referred to as palaeoanthropology), and, the study and analysis of human populations. Both approaches centre around the common theme of human variation, and this theme is basic to the understanding of human adaptation, a central problem for both physical and cultural anthropology.

Osteological remains offer a fruitful subject of inquiry in the field of palaeoanthropology. The science of ‘osteobiography’ (derived from the Greek osteon = bone, Greek bios = life, mode of life, Greek graphia from graphein = to write) refers to a study of skeletons to extract information on the life histories of their occupants. Unless, the bodily structures and health of the members of a community are studied, no social reconstruction is complete. Skeletal remains afford valuable information on age at death, gender (sex) of the deceased, cause of mortality, bone injuries and certain diseases present in the population. This helps draw demographic structure of the population, i.e. age and gender (sex) proportions, mortality rates, morbidity pattern, life expectancy, etc. The effect of climate, ecology and inherited gene complex on human physiology can also be inferred.

In the field of osteobiographic analysis an attempt is made to answer five basic questions, “who was there?”, “how did they look like?” “where did they come from?” (originally and over time), “what happened to them?”, and “what can be said about their way of life?”. The necessary information is obtained by studying the morphological, metric, demographic, pathological features of dental and skeletal elements using micro- and macroscopic methods, as well as, by radiological or chemical analysis.

The study of burial practices and associated artefacts forms an important aspect in the reconstruction of the ways of life of the ancient populations, as they provide important cultural clues. Because of the fragmentary nature of the human skeletal evidence, special care is required during its excavation and also in cleaning and restoration of these elements.

The study of human remains recovered from archaeological sites facilitates the interpretation of lifetime events such as migrations, diet, disease, physiological stress, injury and violent death, physical activity and the demographic history of once-living populations. But, there is often a lack of good number of skeletal remains to represent a population, and it becomes difficult to generate any kind of information from the available scanty and fragmentary remains. The challenge of reconstructing life of extinct human ancestors from their skeletal remains is the domain of the anthropologists. By applying their knowledge of skeletal biology to palaeodemographic questions they contribute to archaeological investigations of extinct populations and help solve medical-legal problems in forensic investigations as well.

3.  Human Skeletal Studies in India: Present Status of Research

India possesses a large body of skeletal data from the pre- and protohistoric levels covering a time span of almost 20,000 years. Major skeletal collection comes from the cultural phases ranging from the Mesolithic, Harappan, Neolithic, Chalcolithic and Iron Age levels. After the Early Historic phase, cremation became the most common method for disposing the dead, and cemeteries, if any, were probably away from the settlement, and consequently not being easily noticed by archaeologists. Though the relevant documentation is far less than complete, recovery of human burials has been reported from more than 300 sites and a conservative estimate would lead to imagine approximately 2000 human skeletons. Not much attention, however, is being paid to the skeletal evidence and wherever attempts were made the material was studied with limited research objective to infer their ‘ethnic’ or ‘racial’ identity. Only about 40 skeletal series have so far been studied. It is indeed unfortunate that evidence from other sites is either lost forever or still awaits careful anthropological scrutiny.

Some scholars believe that the general lack of awareness regarding the research potential of the data on the part of many excavators was one of the major reasons for the slow progress of the discipline in India. It was not only the case with Indian archaeologist, but this attitude was apparently shared in other regions of the globe. It would be of interest to quote comments of some senior western archaeologist about the discoveries of human skeletons in excavation. “…. burials on historical sites are much more trouble than they are worth…Unless the circumstances are very special, I would advise quickly covering them over and forgetting you ever saw them”. Some scholars remark that “Unaware of the potential of human skeletal remains, many archaeologists view them as, at best, an irrelevance, and when encountered in situ as an object whose excavation is time consuming and which somehow does not constitute ‘real’ archaeology ”. Since human remains were not the prime focus of research in most of the excavation projects, often the result is poor post-excavation care of the recovered remains. Nevertheless, there were some scholars who sought to analyze the osseous remains and interpret them in the cultural context they belonged to.

The earliest Hominid fossil found in India is that of the genus Ramapithecus at Haritalyangar in the Siwaliks, and dated to around 8 to 12 million years BP. This genus is primarily represented by well preserved dental remains as well as a few facial and post-cranial bones. On the basis of the recent fossil finds and supported by molecular evidence this genus is now linked with the Great Asian Ape, Orang-utan.

The other important fossil in the Indian subcontinent is the skull cap found at Hathnora on the river Narmada, 40 km northeast of Hoshangabad, Madhya Pradesh. This fossil is recovered from the Pleistocene alluvium in association with stone artefacts like heavy handaxes, cleavers and scrapers. Right neurocranial half is complete with part of the left parietal attached. No facial bone is recovered. This old female adult (earlier interpreted as male) appears to be robust with an erect posture and a fairly well-developed brain. Comparisons of each morphological trait with those of Middle and Late Pleistocene fossils from Africa, Europe and Asia, prove that the Narmada specimen is Homo sapiens and not ‘evolved’ Homo erectus or ‘archaic’ Homo sapiens as identified by earlier scholars. Some have called it Homo indeterminate. Recently right hominid clavicle has also been recovered from the same site by another research team, which exhibits robust features and short length of the concerned individual. Recently cranial fragments of Homo sapiens have also been reported from the site of Jwalapuram rock shelter, designated JWP9.

The cave burial and habitation site of Fa Hein (Sri Lanka) gives the earliest date of c.33,000 years B.P. for the human skeletal deposits (Kennedy and Elgart 1998). The skeletal-bearing deposits from Batadomba Lena (Sri Lanka) have a radiocarbon date of c.16,000 years B.P., though the occupation of the cave dates back to c.28,500 years B.P.

As noted earlier the archaeological sites of the Mesolithic and later period in the Indian subcontinent provide excellent skeletal representation of the bygone human populations.

4.  The Mesolithic hunter–gatherers

The Indian Mesolithic (10,000 to 5,000 B.P.) phase, widely distributed in varied ecological settings, appears to be a period of intense population expansion and cultural innovation. On the Indian soil, human skeletal evidence of Mesolithic cultural phase was reported for the first time from the site of Morhana Pahar, UP. The most ancient representatives of anatomically modern Homo sapiens (AMHS) known till date are from Sarai Nahar Rai and Mahadaha (Pratapgarh district) on the Ganga plains of UP. The radiocarbon dates associated with the specimens indicate an age of 10,000 to 12,000 years B.P. Other Mesolithic sites yielding human skeletons in India are Bagor (Bhilwara district, Rajastan, 5800 years B.P), Lekhahia ki Pahari (Mirzapur district, Uttar Pradesh, 4290 years B.P.), and Langhnaj (Ahmedabad district, Gujarat, 3925 B.P.).

Human remains from the sites of Sarai Nahar Rai and Mahadaha have received detailed anthropological study. These hunter-gatherers were tall statured and muscular. The robusticity is expressed in cranial and post-cranial features. In the expression of robusticity and cranio -facial morphology, there is relative homogeneity amongst the Ganga valley Mesolithic populations. Later Mesolithic populations, however, exhibit relative gracility. Bagor and Langhnaj populations, for example, are relatively gracile. Decrease in stature and tooth size is also evident. These changes seen in populations belonging to different time periods, probably signifies the ever present evolutionary mechanism of adaptation. The Mesolithic populations were successful in exploiting new ecological settings, elaborating their food range, which is taken as an indication of the increased sophistication of socio-economic strategies.

5. The Harappan Urban Dwellers

The Harappan phase provides extensive human skeletal series and has a well-documented record of cultural identity. The Bronze Age Harappan civilization arose around 3rd millennium B.C. in the Indus basin and flourished there for nearly a thousand years(for details see modules on Indus civilization).

Besides the main Harappan sites (like Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro), a few other sites of the Mature Harappan phase (like, Rupar, Rakhigarhi, Kalibangan, Tarkanwala Dera, Lothal, Farmana, Sanuali, Randal Dawa, and Chandu-Daro) give evidence of human burials. The studies carried out on the Harappan skeletal series were mainly aimed to know the ‘racial’ identity of the population. Close genetic affinity of the Harappans with the Tepe Hissar (Iran) and Sakkara (Egypt) populations was observed. These populations temporally belong to the same time frame, but flourished in diverse geographical situations, and cultural assemblage collected from these sites is different too. Other anthropological reports doubt any biological linkage with the Mediterranean populations. “Certain differences exist in facial features, which are of immense value, especially when trying to place the Harappan population in the biological taxon. These differences would suggest that the Harappans occupied a distinct, unique status. It would seem reasonable to conclude that there might have been biological links and genetic continuities between the pre-Harappans and the Harappans, considering the uniqueness of the Harappan physique with regard to the reference population groups and the cultural sequence in this region”.

The Bronze Age Harappan cultural phase waned around 1700 B.C. Many hypotheses have been forwarded to explain the extinction of this culture. Human skeletal evidence, primarily derived from the sites of Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro, was used in two ways to support the hypothesis of presumed invasion of ‘Aryans’ and their role in destruction of these urban centres: a. the claim for a ‘foreign’ phenotypic element in the later phases of the Harappan culture, and b. the so-called ‘massacre’ evidence at Mohenjo-Daro.

The skeletons of the earlier phase were supposed to be ‘racially’ different from those coming from the later phases of habitation. The ‘foreign’ racial element was obviously supposed to have represented some other non-Harappan populations, labeled as ‘Aryans’ (see The Aryan Issue module). The recent revaluation of skeletal series from Harappa indicates that the phenotypic variability seen in the two levels is in acceptable normal range expected in most urban populations, or, even can be attributed to the gradual bodily adaptations to the changes in subsistence pattern and settlement style. Senior anthropologists have concluded that the population of Harappan civilization does not exhibit any significant phenotypic diversity over different levels of habitation and probably, belonged to a single homogeneous unit.

Conclusions, regarding the traumatic end of the inhabitants of Mohenjo-daro had been drawn on the basis of the disorderly disposal of the skeletons. Archaeologists inferred that these individuals had been slain by raiders, while attempting to escape from the city during a military attack of the Aryans. Palaeopathological restudy of the skeletal series, however, clearly indicated that all the so -called wound marks (except in one out of the 24 reported cases) appear to be only erosional in origin, or well healed traumatic lesions, that cannot be related to circumstances and places of burial.

6.  The Neolithic-Chalcolithic agro-pastorals

The Neolithic phase in India covers a wide geographic area and time span from 3,000 to 1,000 B.C., which is contemporary to the Harappan culture.

Burzahom (Kashmir) is one of the major sites in North India giving evidence of human burials. Studies carried out on gross cranial morphometric features of this skeletal series indicate closer biological affinity to the skulls from Harappan Cemetery R-37, rather than with other Neolithic sites of the South India. The Burzahom skeletons exhibit characteristics similar to the Mature Harappans with respect to the long and narrow dolichocephalic head, low receding forehead, and a sturdy physique with a tall to medium stature. These features suggest some ethnic continuity between the two cultures, separated by a temporal span. The variations in Burzahom and the southern Neolithic populations could be because of the different environmental settings they were placed in.

The South Indian Neolithic culture extends from around 2,500 B.C. to 1,000 B.C. The inhabitants of this culture occupied areas in and around the hills overlooking the plains. Though many sites yield human remains, only a few series have been studied, including those from the some sites like Budihal, Tekkalakota, Piklihal, T.Narasipur, Nagarjunkonda, Hulikallu and Ieeja. Archaeological evidence suggests small-scale trade between the Neolithic and their contemporary Chalcolithic inhabitants of the Deccan plateau. Biologically too the Southern Neolithic specimens show close affinity with the Neolithic-Chalcolithic specimens at Nevasa and Chandoli. These studies are based on cranio-morphometry and non-metric traits and serve to establish a biological continuum in the area south of the Narmada.

Not much of anthropological information is available for palaeodemographic features of the Neolithic skeletal series, except for the comments on their origin and biological affinities. The Neolithic sites represent a mixed hunting-gathering and incipient agro-based subsistence pattern. A detailed analysis of the skeletons from the Southern Neolithic sites could therefore provide a valuable source of information regarding bodily, morphological and pathological adaptations in relation to mixed economic strategies. An anthropological study of the Budihal skeletal series is one good example in this direction. This study concluded on moderate physiological stress on these early agro-pastoral communities and emphasizes the need for a fresh anthropological appraisal of the entire Neolithic skeletal series.

The Chalcolithic phase flourished between 2000 and 700 B.C. and marks the beginning of sedentary life. The Deccan Chalcolithic human skeletal series recovered primarily from five Chalcolithic sites, viz. Nevasa, Chandoli, Inamgaon, Daimabad and Kaothe, is one of the largest human skeletal series in the Indian subcontinent. The Chalcolithic was a rural based culture and there was not much emphasis on trade as was during the Harappan phase. Because of limited mobility there was probably not much of external biocultural influence, as well. This provides a sort of ‘controlled’ laboratory situation for undertaking demographic and pathological analyses, which have provided valuable insights into the biological adaptive strategies of these early farmers in response to the changing ecosystems.

7.  The Iron Age Megalithic inhabitants

The Megalithic culture is distributed over a wide geographical area in the peninsular region. Extensive explorations have been undertaken, but most of these studies were in archaeological research perspectives. The southern peninsular India presents a diverse array of megalithic burials: like dolmens, dolmenoid cists, urns, menhirs, topikals, stone circles and passage graves. General notion prevalent among archaeologists is to assign ‘racially’ different groups to each of these styles. In Maharashtra, the Megalithic culture is basically confined to the Vidarbha region. Of the 91 reported Megalithic burial sites in the Maharashtra state, the Vidarbha accommodates as many as 86 sites, where stone circles with cairn filling is the predominant type of megalithic burial construction. Because of the pressure of the superincumbent burial deposit the preservation conditions of skeletal remains is often far from satisfactory.

Though archaeological excavations were undertaken at several burial and a few habitational sites, most of these excavations were small scale. For example, out of 2643 burial circles reported from the excavated sites of Vidarbha, only 69 (2.61%) were exposed. The skeletal material from the Megalithic sites therefore provides very limited anthropological information due to the relatively small-sized collection and its fragmentary and weathered condition.

Nevertheless, careful scrutiny of the skeletal material leads to conclude about the variability of physical characteristics. The specimens from Adittanallur, Raigir, Sanur, Ranchi, Savandurga and Pomparippu are dolichocranic in head form, whereas specimens from Brahmagiri, Nagarjunkonda and Yelleswaram have broader, brachycranic, head. Archaeologists have used these two categories to assume presence of two ‘racial’ stocks and hypothesize about an ‘intruder population’. It has been established now that besides genetic reasoning, these changes can be attributed to non-genetic pressures such as dietary habits, life style, and pathological factors. However, not much of data on dietary habits is available in the Megalithic context. Though the excavations at Raipur and Bhagimohari have yielded agricultural evidence, skeletal and dental pathology was so far the only indirect method of assessing the diet and subsistence pattern. Dental evidence (viz. crown size and pathological features) from the site of Mahurjhari have suggested a mixed economy, combination of both domesticated and wild flora and fauna.

8.  Early Historic to Medieval remains

There are very few sites from historic to medieval period which provides human skeletal material. This is due to expansion of Hindu religion, where cremation is followed. There are sites from different regions and very large time brackets ranging from PGW site Abhaipur in Uttar Pradesh to Jotsoma belonging to 1600 AD from Nagaland. Some other important sites are Sanjan, Balupur, Padri, Leshmi, Kumhar Tekari, Kuntasi, Kottapuram Kodumanal, etc. There are certain limitations while interpreting the skeletal remains. Sites like Padri, Leshmi, Kottapuram and others have one or two individuals which make very difficult to discuss about population level. In case of Sanjan it is very unique site as it represents Parsi population. The Dokhama or Tower of Slience was excavated jointly by the World Zarathusti Cultural Foundation, Mumbai and Indian Archaeological Society, New Delhi, at three different locations of the site, Sanjan bandar (SJN-B), Sanjan kolikhadi (SJN-K) and Sanjan dokhama (SJN-D). The skeletal material throws light on first wave of Parsi migrants from Iran.

9.  Changing Research Orientations: Derivation of Research Problem

Picture emerging from the skeletal biological research in India emphasises ‘racial’ classification as an integral part of the research design. Those who were working on living human populations were classifying them on the basis of their phenotypic characteristics such as skin colour, hair texture and various other facial features. More ‘serious’ studies used cranial length-breadth Index as the basis for classifying population in dolicho-, meso- or brachycranial categories. There were a few courageous scholars who rejected the traditional race concept as being applied in India. Scholars of the opinion that there is every reason to believe that the populations of the Sub-continent have descended from earlier populations of the same geographical region and hypothesized biological continuity in the region. He strongly stated that every population will have its own range of characteristics, and in view of such inter-population variation, single or handful skeletal specimens recovered from many archaeological excavations are not enough to provide data about the ranges of phenotypic variations of those ancient populations. Introduction of population genetics to Indian anthropology in the early seventies signifies more usage of genetic markers (like blood groups for studying living populations, or cranial discrete traits for skeletal populations). Being under genetic control and unmodified by environmental factors discrete traits provided better basis for population comparisons. However, replacement of craniometry by morphological features did not stop writings on racial classification. And this practice continued more than a decade thereafter.

Scholars in systematic biology have recognized difficulties in selecting observable diagnostic features in identifying genetically distinct groups of organisms. Gradually anthropologist also came to realize that every objection to the race concept with reference to plants and animals is equally relevant to Homo sapiens , past and present. Traditional race concept is therefore now no longer a part of the scientific study of human diversity and evolution. Cranial index is no longer a key for identification and studying affinities of a population, but remained as a measure of cranial shape as a result of evolutionary forces of natural selection operating continuously in response to the subsistence strategies of the population and advancement in food procurement technologies achieved. In earlier descriptive and comparative studies primary focus of research was on better preserved adult crania to obtain data on racially diagnostic features. The unfortunate result was that a more extensive collection of fragmentary and immature specimens was routinely disregarded either during the excavation process itself or in the anthropological laboratories. In the changed perspective since the aim is to understand how ancient populations lived, how they coped with the surrounding environment with the technology in hand, all the fragmentary bones are required to be analyzed. Every piece of preserved human bone, cranial or post-cranial, fragmentary or complete, needs to be scrutinized, since these elements can yield information on health status, occupation, age and sex of the deceased. Moreover, synthesis of archaeological and anthropological data is needed to understand the process of cultural evolution and its impact on human life and vice-versa.

The studies carried out on bio-cultural perspectives on the Inamgaon, Daimabad, Nevasa and Kaothe human skeletal series were successful in unfolding the patterns of ancient lifeways in the ways never explored before. For example, valuable data is now available on the health status of these early agro-pastoral populations. The overall gracile appearance of the Chalcolithic population in comparison with the Mesolithic predecessors has also been interpreted as due to factors like natural selection involving a settled life style and low quality diet.

By placing the skeletal material into an assigned cultural context, anthropologists can attempt to trace the evolutionary routes of the human form through different technologically based culture groups through time. Moreover, they can also evaluate the nature of the biological stress on populations in diverse ecological settings and in relation with the advancement in technology.

10. Palaeopathology and Its Implications

Palaeopathology essentially can be defined as the study of (logos) ancient (palaeo) suffering (pathos) in both humans and other animals. It is a discipline that aims to trace the origin, evolution and history of diseases over long periods of time through pathological changes which represent diseases suffered in life and observed in human remains buried at archaeological sites. This evidence of both acute injuries and chronic illnesses tells us a great deal about how individuals and populations experienced various challenges to their health. The data provide direct primary information about disease in the past, and they are interpreted in conjunction with contemporary of disease from documentary and iconographic data, where available. However, for those parts of history where there are no written or illustrative records, human skeletal remains furnish the only evidence that can be used to reconstruct the history of disease. By studying disease inour ancestors’ remains, a deep time perspective can be achieved.

Recent advances include isotopic studies conducted on enamel from the Harappan site of Farmana in Haryana, have given evidence of early age migration pattern. Strontium and lead isotope ratios allow us to reinterpret the Indus tradition of cemetery inhumation as part of a specific and highly regulated institution of migration. Intra-individual isotopic shifts are consistent with immigration from resource -rich hinterlands during childhood. Furthermore, mortuary populations formed over hundreds of years and composed almost entirely of first-generation immigrants suggest that inhumation was the final step in a process linking certain urban Indus communities to diverse hinterland groups. Additional multi disciplinary analyses are warranted to confirm inferred patterns of Indus mobility, but the available isotopic data suggest that efforts to classify and regulate human movement in the ancient Indus region likely helped structure socioeconomic integration across an ethnically diverse landscape.

Reanalysis of skeletal collections have yielded new evidences of pathologies which has helped in understanding skeletal populations. Studies on Balathal specimens indicate that lepromatous leprosy was present in India by 2000 B.C. This evidence represents the oldest documented skeletal evidence for the disease. Our results indicate that Vedic burial traditions in cases of leprosy were present in northwest India prior to the first millennium B.C. Our results also support translations of early Vedic scriptures as the first textual reference to leprosy. The presence of leprosy in skeletal material dated to the post-urban phase of the Indus Age suggests that if M. leprae evolved in Africa, the disease migrated to India before the Late Holocene, possibly during the third millennium B.C. at a time when there was substantial interaction among the Indus Civilization, Mesopotamia, and Egypt. This evidence should be impetus to look for additional skeletal and molecular evidence of leprosy in India and Africa to confirm the African origin of the disease.

While understanding the biological process at the end of the Indus civilization it is noticed that the prevalence of infection and infectious disease increased through time. Risk for infection and disease was uneven among burial communities. Corresponding mortuary differences suggest that socially and economically marginalized communities were most vulnerable in the context of climate uncertainty at Harappa. Observations of the intersection between climate change and social processes in proto-historic cities offer valuable lessons about vulnerability, insecurity, and the long-term consequences of short-term strategies for coping with climate change.

While describing the Harappan population in ‘A peaceful realm? Trauma and social differentiation at Harappa’ it is mentioned that the prevalence and patterning of cranial injuries, combined with striking differences in mortuary treatment and demography among the three burial areas indicate interpersonal violence in Harappan society was structured along lines of gender and community membership. The results contradict the dehumanizing, unrealistic myth of the Indus Civilization as an exceptionally peaceful prehistoric urban civilization. The interpretations seem to be amplified to some extent, as these observations are based on not very large sample. If we assume that Harappans lived in large cities for more than 2000 years at that particular area, the skeletal remains are not more than 250 individuals. Out of that only few have indication of trauma related to violence. So, it is quite difficult to say for entire population based on such a small sample.

It is interesting to see the presence of maxillary sinusitis, an infection to maxillary floor, in archaeological populations from protohistoric (1500 B.C.) and medieval (around 17th century) India and to understand it from socio-economic perspective. Considering the ethnographic aspects, the study reveals that inflammation possibly caused by inhaling polluted air for a long duration or because of dental disease. Also, apart from pollution in domestic zones, external pollution because of vocation is also discussed in this study using relevant ethnographic parallels.

10. Conclusion

Through this chapter we could understand what is anthropology, its sub-disciplines in brief. It is also understood that India provides large number of human skeletal data which can be studied with bio-cultural perspectives. Different burial practices were followed by these ancient populations though out.

The morphological and palaeopathological studies conducted on these skeletal collections have helped us in understanding the adaptation of these people with their respective environments. The tools like isotope, DNA and reanalysis of collection can tell us many aspects of life lived by people.

Web links

• http://www.saa.org/ForthePublic/Resources/EducationalResources/ForEducators/Archaeologyfor
• Educators/WhatisArchaeology/tabid/1346/Default.aspx http://study.com/academy/lesson/overview-of-archaeological-anthropology.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeology
• https://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/courses-listing/archaeology-and-anthropology?wssl=1

Bibliography

• Kennedy K.A.R. and P. Caldwell. 1984. South Asian Prehistoric Human Skeletal Remains and Burial Practices, in The People of South Asia: The Biological Anthropology of India, Pakistan and Nepal (J.R. Lukacs Ed.), pp. 159-197. New York: Plenum Press.
• Kennedy, K.A.R. 2003. God-apes and fossil men: Paleoanthropology of south asia. Ann Arbor.: The University of Michigan Press
• Mohanty RK, and Walimbe SR. 1993. A demographic approach to the Vidarbha Megalithic Culture. Man and Environment 18(2):93-103.
• Mushrif V, and Walimbe SR. 2005. Human skeletal remains from Chalcolithic Nevasa:Osteobiographic Analysis. London.
• Mushrif V, and Walimbe SR. 2005. Human skeletal remains from Sanjan Excavations. Journal of Indian Ocean Archaeology 2(73-96).
• Mushrif-Tripathy V, Jamir T, Vasa D, and Walimbe SR. 2009. Human skeletal remains from Megalithic Jotsoma. Kolkata: Center for Archaeological Studies and Training, Eastern India (CASTEI).
• Mushrif-Tripathy, V. 2013. What Lies in Bones: The Story of Harappa and Fallacy of ‘AryanInvasion’. In Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology Vol. 1: 29‐35.
• Mushrif-Tripathy, V. 2014. Maxillary Sinusitis from India: A Bio-cultural Approach, in Korean Journal of Physical Anthropology Vol. 27, No. 1 (2014) pp. 11~28. (Published Online 30 March 2014) http://dx.doi.org/10.11637/kjpa.2014.27.1.11
• Mushrif-Tripathy, V. 2014. Human Skeletal Studies in India: A Review, pp 139-154. InArchaeological Human Remains: Global Perspectives (O’Donnabhain, Barra, Lozada Cerna, María Cecilia (Eds.)), Springer International Publishing, ISBN 978-3-319-06370-6s
• Mushrif-Tripathy, V. 2014. Scope of Skeletal Anthropology in North-East India with Special Reference to Nagaland (pp. 250- 257), in 50 Years After Daojali-Hading: Emerging Perspectives in the Archaeology of Northeast India” (Essays in Honour of Tarun Chandra Sharma) (Tiatoshi Jamir & Manjil Hazarika (Eds.), Research India Press, New Delhi. ISBN: 978-81-89131-90-6.
• Nautiyal, Vinod, R.C. Bhatt, Pradeep M. Saklani, Veena Mushrif Tripathy, C.M. Nautiyal & Hari Chauhan. 2014. Lippa and Kanam: Trans-Himalayan cist burial culture and pyrotechnology in Kinnaur, Himachal Pradesh, India The Project Gallery, Antiquity Volume 088 Issue 339 March 2014