Status Updates From The Archaeology of Disease

Done! The last two chapters felt anemic after the extensive sections on infectious and metabolic disease, but I suppose that makes sense given the limited data on neoplasias un the archaeological record. I'm impressed that 25% of the book is references!

The chapter on metabolic disease is frustrating, because we know of it's important historical role but the skeletal evidence is so minimal. I wish there were more illustrations of scurvy related bone growth and adult deformities from rickets.

That's more than I ever wanted to know about leprosy and syphilis. The connections between leprosy and TB make me wonder about immunization strategies. The challenge of differentiating the causes of syphilis and related diseases reminds me of psychiatric classification problems.

Bone infections are scary stuff. I appreciate the in depth treatment of tuberculosis, and implications of archaeological specimens in understanding the cultivation of human infection through agriculture.

I did not realize there were so many different types of joint disease. I'm also surprised that the associations between joint deterioration and occupation aren't stronger.

The trauma chapter is long, but deeply informative. The measurement challenges are utterly obscene, and I marvel that we have anything close to accurate estimates.

Also, I appreciate the extra detail on trepanning methods and survival rates.

The chapter on dental issues is informative, though I wish there were more pictures. The methodological considerations for reporting present a fascinating problem (per observed tooth? per person? per carie? Etc). The attention to cultural aspects of tooth decay on both a civilization label and an individual level presents a set of ideas we rarely talk about.

It's a wonder we have any paleopathological evidence of congenital diseases. It seems every biological, social, and preservative process is against the likelihood of finding evidence.

The level of ambiguity when identifying basic characteristics like age and sex of skeletons raises more questions than it answers. The dependency on comparators from environmentally distinct populations feels like a fundamental measurement error. I wish there were more explanation of the statistical approaches used here.

The measurement problems in assessing pathology from archaeological specimens are an interesting challenge to overcome. The absence of soft tissue data and limited sampling opportunity feels like a measurement and design nightmare.