Trauma and treatment in the British Isles 



in the Historic Period: A design for 



multidiscipHnary research 



Charlotte Roberts 



The study of disease processes in past populations has had a 

 long history stemming from 19th century investigations. The 

 skeletal remains of our ancestors have always attracted atten- 

 tion and interest from scholars and amateurs alike, often with 

 a somewhat startling obsession. Lay attitudes to study of 

 human remains have also varied through time up to the pres- 

 ent day; there is now little room or finances for superficial, 

 unplanned study yielding results insignificant with regard to 

 the archeology of the population as a whole. In addition, 

 current problems concern the ethical aspects of the scientific 

 study of recent, and even more distant, ancestors of indige- 

 nous populations, notably the Aboriginal communities of 

 Australia (Webb 1987). Prevention of study of ancestral re- 

 mains and their removal from museums for reburial should 

 be an issue of concern to all paleopathologists. The Paleo- 

 pathology Association is at present heavily involved with this 

 reburial issue (Hart and Ubelaker 1987). 



Paleopathology has, however, advanced over the years in 

 terms of its credibility as a science and its recognition by 

 archeologists as a valuable tool in reconstructing the past. It 

 need hardly be said that the remains of people who lived 

 many thousands of years ago are the nearest evidence which 

 anybody can hope to obtain to rebuild a valid picture. Nev- 

 ertheless, the discipline has some way to go before it is 

 recognized and accepted as a useful tool for reconstruction of 

 ancient societies. At times paleopathological studies, in Brit- 

 ain at least, are criticized as being "unco-ordinated and des- 

 perately undcrstafted; therefore there is little possibility of 

 constructive exchange of views between the paleopathologist 

 and archeologist" (Cramp 1983: 19). Obviously this is not the 

 case for all countries where perhaps funding for research is 

 more readily available, thereby providing an environment 

 conducive to this interchange of ideas. 



Paleopathology is but one aspect of interpreting the struc- 

 ture of past societies and, although contributing significantly 

 to this aim, it cannot survive alone and in isolation from other 

 disciplines in archeology. Alone it provides little construc- 

 tive and interpretable data. Every aspect of archeological 



Zagreb Paleopaihology Symp. 1988 



Studies can contribute .something to an understanding of the 

 complexities of the lives of peoples in antiquity. As Arnold 

 said (1986:38), "Specialists must continue with their re- 

 search; none need, nor has any right, to believe that their 

 specialization is superior to any other; each must feed their 

 data, observed patterns and generalizations to those who seek 

 to take a more generalized overview of past human behavior, 

 an overview which must incorporate all types of evidence." 



All experts in their own fields must collaborate to create an 

 accurate interpretation of the society they are studying. One 

 should try to use even fragmentary data, because, as Bisel 

 and Angel said (1985:198): "It is by consideration of all 

 factors together that more reliable conclusions can be 

 drawn." Reece (1982:348) clearly is in agreement with this 

 statement when he bemoans the lack of integration of all 

 aspects of cemetery studies: "I have yet to find a report which 

 integrates all these facts, and it is the separation of bones 

 from bodies, and bodies from cemeteries and finds, that 

 causes my dis-ease." Reece found a general failure to inte- 

 grate human bone reports from Roman cemeteries in Britain 

 with the cemetery report as a whole. He emphasizes 

 (1977:355) "the incredible stupidity of digging a cemetery 

 and then classing the major source of information as an op- 

 tional appendix." 



Attempts at using integrated multidisciplinary evidence to 

 reproduce particular aspects of a society, such as diet and 

 changes in economy, have been successful in America 

 (Gilbert and Mieike 1985; Cohen and Armclagos 1984) and 

 anthropologists have advocated a close working relationship 

 between them and archeologists (Osborne 1969). preferably 

 in departments employing workers in both disciplines. Inter- 

 pretation and understanding should be the ultimate aim of 

 studying all types of archeological and related data. 



The following paper shows an attempt to use many differ- 

 ent types of evidence to reconstruct how well or how badly 

 past peoples managed injuries to the long bones and skull. 



Paleopathology by its very nature relics on diagnosis based 

 on modem clinical medical method, and interpretation of 



225 



