Although ethical reforms in biological anthropology have gained ground in recent years, there is still a scarcity of ethical standards for work involving historical documented collections (HDCs) at US museums and universities. These collections of deceased individuals were created in the late 19th to mid‐20th centuries under anatomy laws that targeted socially marginalized communities and allowed for the dissection of these individuals without their consent. Due to the extensive information associated with the individuals and made available to researchers, these collections have served as foundational resources for theory and methods development in biological anthropology into the 21st century. Recognizing the need for ethical guidelines for research, teaching and training, community engagement, and curation involving HDCs, we held a workshop called “Ethical Futures for Curation, Research, and Teaching in Biological Anthropology” on November 15–17, 2021. Here we summarize the conversations and major points of consensus among the workshop participants on these topics in order to advance these ethical considerations more broadly across the field.

To broaden bioarchaeological applicability of skeletal frailty indices (SFIs) and increase sample size, we propose indices with fewer biomarkers (2–11 non-metric biomarkers) and compare these reduced biomarker SFIs to the original metric/non-metric 13-biomarker SFI. From the 2-11-biomarker SFIs, we choose the index with the fewest biomarkers (6-biomarker SFI), which still maintains the statistical robusticity of a 13-biomarker SFI, and apply this index to the same Medieval monastic and nonmonastic populations, albeit with an increased sample size. For this increased monastic and nonmonastic sample, we also propose and implement a 4-biomarker SFI, comprised of biomarkers from each of four stressor categories, and compare these SFI distributions with those of the non-metric biomarker SFIs. From the Museum of London WORD database, we tabulate multiple SFIs (2- to 13-biomarkers) for Medieval monastic and nonmonastic samples (N = 134). We evaluate associations between these ten non-metric SFIs and the 13-biomarker SFI using Spearman’s correlation coefficients. Subsequently, we test non-metric 6-biomarker and 4-biomarker SFI distributions for associations with cemetery, age, and sex using Analysis of Variance/Covariance (ANOVA/ANCOVA) on larger samples from the monastic and nonmonastic cemeteries (N = 517). For Medieval samples, Spearman’s correlation coefficients show a significant association between the 13-biomarker SFI and all non-metric SFIs. Utilizing a 6-biomarker and parsimonious 4-biomarker SFI, we increase the nonmonastic and monastic samples and demonstrate significant lifestyle and sex differences in frailty that were not observed in the original, smaller sample. Results from the 6-biomarker and parsimonious 4-biomarker SFIs generally indicate similarities in means, explained variation (R²), and associated P-values (ANOVA/ANCOVA) within and between nonmonastic and monastic samples. We show that non-metric reduced biomarker SFIs provide alternative indices for application to other bioarchaeological collections. These findings suggest that a SFI, comprised of six or more non-metric biomarkers available for the specific sample, may have greater applicability than, but comparable statistical characteristics to, the originally proposed 13-biomarker SFI.

Bioarchaeology uses human skeletal remains to reconstruct varied experiences of individuals and populations in the past, including patterns of health across time periods and cultural contexts. In the past three decades, bioarchaeological studies have highlighted the concept of “frailty,” operationalizing it as increased risk of mortality or cumulative phenotypes. Using data from medieval London cemeteries, we integrate these two approaches to frailty in past populations. First, we estimate the risks of mortality and survivorship (hazard and survival analyses) associated with 10 biomarkers and use these results to construct population-specific frailty and resilience indices. Then, we apply the indices to adult individuals to explore frailty and resilience differentials between males and females in medieval London. Findings suggest that the male-female morbidity-mortality paradox observed in modern populations may not have existed in this context, which may be explained by preferential cultural buffering of men in this patriarchal, urban setting.