Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1098850
14 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 31 MARCH 2019 INTERVIEW Being primarily a burial site, the Xaghra Stone Circle's archaeological treasures consist, for the most part, of bones. As a specialist in osteo-archaeology… what can a human skeleton tell us about the way people actually lived around 5,000 years ago or more? Bones can tell us a lot about a population. First of all, when you look at bones, you are actu- ally looking at what is left of the people themselves. It's direct evidence of who they were, and how they lived. What closer con- nection can you get to their cul- ture? But in terms of precise in- formation: first of all, a skeleton will potentially tell you whether the person was male or female. There are some pointers, such as the cranium, and especially the pelvic region… the pelvis of a woman is different from that of a man, obviously to accom- modate childbirth. Also, the skull tends to be different by a number of markers. A male skull tends to be more robust, and in some features larger. In fact, we have a checklist of such markers, when examining skeletal remains. Out of curiosity, how do their physical dimensions compare to ours today? Some bones suggest that they were, on average, taller than us. Not excessively taller, but that's the impression we get from skel- etal remains. But there are other studies going on at the moment, looking specifically into robus- ticity of the lower, and upper limbs, to gauge the levels of daily activity. Because that's another thing: the human skeleton will also yield information about the person's daily actions. If people are engaged in constant physi- cal activity – especially involving direct, repetitive action – it will leave a mark on their bones… This brings us to a specific interest of mine: how did these people live? So far we have talked only about what their bones might tell us about a single individual. What do they tell us about communal life in Malta, between 4,500 and 5,800 years ago? One thing that clearly emerges from the evidence is that they were a thriving population. Even without looking at the bone re- cord: the fact that they survived here for so long, without any metal implements and other technological resources, except for stone tools, and other local re- sources such as wood and some imported materials, such as flint from Sicily, is incredible in itself. That's one thing to keep in mind. So definitely, life was a lot harder than what we are used to today. But their bones – and especially, the pathologies they reveal – also tell us another story. If you want to examine any stress in diet, or in daily life, you're going to want to look at diseases. Certain diseases will be associated with factors such as malnutrition, or limited food sources, etc. In gen- eral, looking at the record as a whole, we are not seeing certain markers that are visible in other populations at the time. But when you start splitting up the data – comparing, for instance, the early phase of the Neolithic to the middle and late phases – some trends start to emerge. Towards the end, in fact, certain stress markers do occur. Not at an alarming rate; but something seems to have started happening in the middle of the Neolithic pe- riod, resulting possibly in more limited food resources. The re- cent study of the human remains from the Xaghra Circle – con- ducted under FRAGSUS, a 2.5 million euro project funded by the European Research Council – also focused on the quality of the soil. Specialised researchers are currently studying soil sam- ples, which are tested for pol- len levels, grain residue, aridity and so on… and, researchers are starting to build a picture that in the later periods perhaps the soil quality had started depleting. Whether this was due to dry or wet spells, or possibly floods, is hard to say. But in a few months the conclusive results of these studies will be published. None- theless, on the whole, the skeletal evidence suggests that these peo- ple were actually very healthy, on average. They were certainly very tough… very resilient. How can tell all that, just from looking at a cranium, or a femur? Again, it is the pathologies, in particular, that you have to look to. For example, one thing that really stands out is the preva- lence of osteo-arthritis… but not in the knees, in the hip-bones, or the shoulders – the weight- bearing parts of the skeleton, where you'd expect to find signs of osteo-arthritis today. No, they suffered from it mainly in their hands, their feet, and their spine. This is a recurring pat- tern; there was lots of it. And it was really, really severe. In any joint of the human skeleton, there will be a layer of cushion- ing around the bones, to prevent them from rubbing against each other when you move. In these people, however, that cushion- ing was in most cases completely gone. There was bone-to-bone contact, which literally polishes the bone. It's almost like they've been varnished. The pain must have been excruciating; yet whatever it is they were doing… they kept doing it. This indicates not only that they were tough people – I don't want to say 'su- perhuman', because it would be an exaggeration; but their pain threshold must have been con- siderably higher than ours. But it also suggests that they were mo- tivated… something drove them to keep on… Any idea what it was that they were doing, to cause osteo- arthritis on that scale? It must have been something constant, repetitive – regularly, all the time – with their hands and feet, which also involved their spine: the 'motor', as it were, of the human skeleton. But I can't be more specific than that. We are still gathering data, and one of the things we'd like to understand is precisely what this daily, repetitive action might have been… I know that wild speculation is not part of the scientific method: but do you have any pet theories of their own? It's not so out of place to ex- amine a possible hypothesis. For instance: if you go to Marsaxlokk today, you will see people mend- ing or weaving nets with both their toes and their fingers. Possi- bly, it might also affect the spine. So we considered that it might have been evidence of a fishing culture. But then we tested their teeth, and ran isotype analyses to gauge their diet: because if they were fishermen, then we should expect to see high intake of fish. [Pause] They weren't eating too much fish. In fact, fish con- sumption was not at all popular in Neolithic Malta. In a way, it's strange, as Malta is surrounded by sea… …and marine life must have been abundant… Entirely. But it could also re- flect that these people were very insular. Even the megalith- ic temples themselves… first of all, they are completely unique in the Mediterranean. There is nothing comparable, in any other place outside Malta. And there is a theory that holds that ancient island cultures may become increasingly inward- looking, and almost obsess about a particular trait in their culture – in Malta, this obses- sion would have been the build- ing of the massive monuments, we call the megalithic temples. Separately, there is evidence of a decline in trade towards the later Neolithic. People do seem to have been closing themselves within their island, and creat- ing further isolation… they would have looked for food in- land, which is also reflected in the fact that they didn't go out fishing too often. The evidence suggests this, but we don't know exactly why… Recent studies on the Xaghra Circle in Gozo – a Neolithic burial site in use between 3,800BC and 2,500BC – appear to indicate that Malta's temple-building culture was possibly more sophisticated than previously assumed. BERNARDETTE MERCIECA-SPITERI, executive of the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage, outlines what can be learnt from the study of ancient human remains The bare bones of our Raphael Vassallo Raphael Vassallo rvassallo@mediatoday.com.mt