Introduction 



Donald J. Ortner and Arthur C. Aufderheide 



What scientific generalizations about paleopathology can 

 now be made'.' What can paleopathology tell us about biolog- 

 ical processes in the past? To what extent does current medi- 

 cal knowledge relate to the interpretation of paleopathologi- 

 cal specimens? These and many more questions are of critical 

 importance to the status of current and future research in 

 paleopathology. We need to give careful thought to more 

 general and longer-range goals for paleopathology and the 

 need to integrate that research into the broader context of 

 biomedical theory. These considerations will be among the 

 major factors that will determine the nature and quality of 

 research in the future. 



Clearly our descriptive methodology and classificatory 

 system are currently major barriers to comparative research. 

 In many published reports it is virtually impossible to evalu- 

 ate the evidence presented because the descriptions are vague 

 and imprecise. Worse still, some authors provide a medically 

 based diagnostic opinion with insufficient data to permit in- 

 dependent evaluation. 



The coeditors of this volume suggest that at least some 

 aspects of paleopathological research have reached a plateau 

 beyond which significant further progress cannot be made 

 without major changes in the type of research we do and the 

 methods we use to do it. Any effort, for example, to find 

 general trends in the history and evolution of disease on the 

 basis of existing published reports on paleopathology imme- 

 diately confronts serious problems in the lack of com- 

 parability of source materials. We must develop at least gen- 

 eral guidelines for the basic data needed and the methodology 

 necessary to build a base of data that will permit research on 

 some of the important questions we need to address. 



In our opinion paleopathology has reached the point where 

 we can at least begin to evaluate the potential of various 

 avenues of research and begin to suggest methodological 

 options for achieving these objectives Rapidly developing 

 biomedical technology is beginning to offer some potentially 

 powerful research tools for paleopathology. Trace element 

 and isotopic analysis have already clarified important dietary 

 and nutritional factors in human archeological populations. 

 The recovery of DNA from archeological human tissues may 



Zagreb Paleopaihology Symp. J 988 



provide important data on diseases that have a genetic basis. 

 The recovery of human IgG from archeological bone tissue, 

 reported in this volume by Noreen Tuross, offers the potential 

 of identifying infectious diseases that were present in a popu- 

 lation. This is possible even if individuals in the living popu- 

 lation were only exposed to the disease organisms and did not 

 have the disease itself. 



The application of high-tech biochemical methods to prob- 

 lems in paleopathology involves many methodological haz- 

 ards that are poorly understood. Postmortem diagenic change 

 is a major barrier in such research. Little is known about the 

 f)otential of false positives or negatives resulting from di- 

 agenic processes or contamination of biological tissues by 

 natural products in the soil environment. We also need to 

 know more about the biology of the tissues we use in this 

 research. For example, are there age-related differences in 

 the biochemistry and histology of normal bone tissue? These 

 problems clearly deserve more attention than is apparent in 

 some of the current publications. The well-known problems 

 that have emerged with trace element research in archeologi- 

 cal bone tissue provide a good case study regarding the haz- 

 ards associated with the simplistic application of biochemical 

 methods to such materials. 



Another issue in paleopathology is that inadequate atten- 

 tion has been given to theory. There have been some impor- 

 tant attempts to explore theoretical aspects of both the time 

 and space dimensions of disease in antiquity (e.g. , Cockbum 

 1963; McNeill 1976; Grmek 1989). However, much of this 

 emphasis has been in the scholarly context of medical history 

 and very little attempt has been made to interpret paleopa- 

 thological data in the general context of biological and medi- 

 cal theory. An exception to this is the recent book by Grmek 

 ( 1989). There are interesting and important theoretical ques- 

 tions that must be explored as wc begin to integrate research 

 in paleopathology with the b(xJy of theory and data in other 

 disciplines. 



Perhaps the most urgent need in paleopathology is a care- 

 ful review of the methods wc are using. Methodology helps 

 us to respond to the question of "what is it'" when we see a 

 pathological condition. Certainly describing and, if possible, 



I 



