Palaeopathology: An American Account Jane E, Buikstra; Della C. Cook Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 9 (1980), 433-470. Stable URL: http//links jstor.org/sici?sic!=0084-6570% 28 1980%292%3A9%3C433%3APAANG3E2.0,CO%3B2-2 Annual Review of Anthropology is currently published by Annual Reviews. ‘Your use of the ISTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR’s Terms and Conditions of Use, available at hhup:/www.jstororg/about/terms.hml. JSTOR’s Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use ofthis work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at hup:/www jstor-org/journals/annrevs.huml Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the sereen or printed page of such transmission, STOR is an independent not-for-profit organization dedicated to creating and preserving a digital archive of scholarly journals, For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact support @jstor.org. hupslwww jstor.org/ ‘Sun Sop 12 17:11:03 2004dam Re Arthapd 198 9433-70 apyright © 1980 by Annual Reviews I Al ight revered PALAEOPATHOLOGY: $9663 AN AMERICAN ACCOUNT Jane E. Buikstra Department of Anthropology, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois 60201 Della C. Cook Department of Anthropology, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana 47405 {In 1936 Herbert U. Willams published his lst notable paper on palaopathology. Hence ‘we may select that year as marking the end of the great ea that began about 1900 and cncompassed the work of Hrdlicka, Moodie, Williams, and Hooton. We must now ‘consider what hus been achieved during the lst thirty years. This period has produced no new work of general synthesis comparable to Moodie's Palaspathology and no ‘outstanding fundamental contribution Jarcho (108, p23) Although during the erly part of this century and continuing into the 19305 there was ‘much interest shown nthe medical biology of ancient populations, the past three decades Ihave seen but small advances, Brothwell& Sandison (31, p. xi) INTRODUCTION ‘The years 1966 and 1967 saw the publication of two major volumes dealing with the investigation of ancient disease. One of these, Jarcho's Human Palaeopathology (108), was based upon a symposium held in Washington, D.C,, in 1965, sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council. Although attendance was not limited to American schol- ars, and general issues of method and theory were discussed, a regional 33 (0084-6570/80/1015-0433S01.00434 BUIKSTRA & COOK focus was apparent. Jarcho’s introductory paper developed a history of palacopathology in this country, emphasizing the scholars mentioned above, as well as the earlier work of Jones, Virchow, Whitney, Warren, Putnam, and Morton. His discussion of the period 1936 to 1965 begins with the above lament concerning the state of the art. He indicates that “there have been a modest number of sporadic individual efforts” including “many of which are meritorious and interesting” (108, p. 23). This faint praise is remarkably similar to that voiced by Don Brothwell and A. T. Sandison in their “Editorial Prolegomenon’” to Diseases in Antiquity, a more general text, originating “from a feeling among students of early disease, that the time has come for some form of palaeopathological stock-taking and pool- ing of recently collected data” (31, p. xi). This collection of new as well as, “classic” studies was published but one year after the Jarcho symposium volume. Only two individuals appear in both volumes. Given this diversity, the common message in so short a time is remarkable ... and reinforcing. Although Sandison (187) published a disclaimer for the United Kingdom, it appears that there was litte satisfaction with the progress of palaeopa- thology during the middle third of the twentieth century, even among the field’s most eminent scholars. This had not always been the case. The editors of both volumes reflected fondly on a heritage from scholars writing during the early decades of this century. Newly developed medical technology was being applied to ancient tissues soon after its clinical utility was demonstrated. The excitement generated when ancient man was discovered to have suffered from myriad contemporary maladies pervades many publications from this period—an era when there was little self-conscious questioning of diagnoses or concern for potential limitations of the archaeological record. Scholars optimisti- cally applied the crafts of medical science to long-dead individuals, but the range of easly identifiable diseases was soon exhausted and few new discov- cries were forthcoming. Conclusions about the individual were limited, and these limitations multiplied when inferences about populations were at- tempted. The pessimism of the classic epidemiological work of this era, Hooton’s report on Pecos Pueblo, is not coincidental: “At the present time pathologists cannot distinguish in dry bones the lesions left by diseases which they easily and correctly diagnose in the living. The few exceptions to this generalization include only arthritis, osteomyelitis, Pot’s disease, osteomalacia, and a few other ailments” (104, p. 306). And, as Stewart noted (213) in the poignant introduction to his contribution to the Jar- cho volume, scholars even became unsure about what they thought they knew. Both symposia represent attempts to overcome the midcentury dol- drums. Prominent in the remarks of both editors are criticisms and recom-