you can tell class ranking by opening the burial sites what they are buried in, what they are buried with (upper class may bury high-value items with the person, and condition of the skeletal remains if possible to determine that still. Also where they are buried Cemetary for example has different areas for poorer people, different religions, children, etc. Tombs in Egypt and elsewhere are all designed and built according to social and economic standing
Explanation: Heres the actual article explaing it from https://bonesdontlie.wordpress.com/2012/01/24/status-and-rank-in-mortuary-archaeology/
STATUS AND RANK IN MORTUARY ARCHAEOLOGY
January 24, 2012 · by Kate Meyers Emery · in Funeral Practices, Mortuary Archaeology, Theories. ·
Using mortuary sites as evidence for reconstructing social organization in the past is not a new field of study. It became popular in the 1960s through 1980s during the New Archaeology era. In 1971, Binford argued that the study of mortuary sites was important because one could determine the social structure of the society from the study of the artifacts and burials. Differential treatment of the body, varying facilities of disposal, and variation in the grave goods were all signs that individuals had different social personae. By presenting burials as a reflection of structure rather than ideas, it gave archaeologists a way to integrate this form of evidence into systems theories and a solid piece of evidence that could be recovered, unlike belief systems. Binford (1971) argued that the higher status an individual was the more people would be invested in their burial. Tainter (1978) used this to create an analysis of energy expenditure, whereby more energy was used in burials for higher-ranking individuals. Peebles and Kus (1977) argued that different clusters of grave goods with burials meant different statuses, which could either be ranked vertically or due to different horizontal group associations. However, as noted by Carr (1995), the ‘excavation’ of social systems is just as difficult as the ‘excavation’ of belief systems. Determining status and rank requires careful contextual interpretation.
Campeche Museum, Mayan Burial
The problem with studies like Binford, Tainter, or Peebles and Kus, is that they do not consider evidence beyond the burial, grave goods, and immediate location. Focusing completely on social organization means losing sight of other potentially important variables. Spatial relationships need to be determined, as well as the potential symbolic meanings of the burials. While the social structure may frequently correlate with burial patterns, it isn’t necessarily the cause of the burials. It is important to consider the range of reasons behind certain burials including the social, ideological and environmental dimensions. Determining rank and status can be done, it just needs to be done carefully
From Oxford Archaeo, Attic red-figure lekythos
Another source of information often looked over in the past are the individuals themselves. Health is an important indicator of status, whether it be a lowered risk of infection, better access to medicine, differential access to food, or occupation. A new study by Watkins (2012) looks at the health of a historic skeletal collection. By looking at the variation in osteoarthritis (OA) patterns, the presence of enthesopathy, fractures and cause of death, she determined that there were two samples of skeletons from two very different social contexts. Based on the presence of mild OA and muscular stress, low disease and healed fractures in one group with much higher age, he determined that these were individuals collected from an almshouse. The second group had a higher prevalence of OA and muscular stress was affected by more diseases and had worse fractures suggesting that they did not have the care of an almshouse, but were on their own. Looking at the social context of early 20th century Washington, DC (where the collection comes from), Watkins (2012) argues that the first group may have been connected to an almshouse where individuals could get care throughout their life, where the second group did not have this connection. While this group has been lumped together in the past as reflecting a poor population, a closer examination reveals internal diversity that is important for better understanding social conditions and structure
