Shuffling Nags, Lame Ducks: The Archaeology of Animal Disease

By Laszlo Bartosiewicz and Erika Gal

The analysis of animal bone assemblages from archaeological sites provides much valuable data concerning economic and husbandry practices in the past, as well as insights into cultural and symbolic or ritual activity. Animal palaeopathology can identify diseases in archaeozoological assemblages but little interest has been expressed in investigating and understanding the cultural aspects of the diseases identified. Such assemblages represent the cumulative effects of human attitudes, decisions and influences regarding the keeping, care, treatment, neglect and exploitation of animals which result in a range of conditions, non-infectious diseases and injuries that can be recognised on ancient skeletal material. Additionally, ever since the domestication of a handful of animal species around 10,000 years ago, close physical proximity has been a mutual source of infectious disease and traumatic injury for humans and animals alike.

Shuffling Nags, Lame Ducks provides an invaluable guide to the investigation of trauma and disease in archaeozoological assemblages. It provides a clear methodological approach, and describes and explains the wide range of traumatic lesions, infections, diseases, inherited disorders and other pathological changes and anomalies that can be identified. In so doing, it explores the impact that “man-made” decisions have had on animals, including special aspects of culture that may be reflected in the treatment of diseased or injured animals often incorporating powerful symbolic or religious roles, and seeks to enhance our understanding of the relationship between man and beast in the past.

Chapters include:
· History of studying pathological animal remains
· Differences between human and animal palaeopathology
· Methodology
· Growth, development and ageing
· Traumatic lesions
· Inflammatory diseases and bone
· Pathological lesions in working animals
· Diseases connected to the environment

• Language: English
• Publisher: Oxbow Books
• Release date: Nov 1, 2013
• ISBN: 9781782971948

Laszlo Bartosiewicz

László Bartosiewicz is Professor in Osteoarchaeology at the University of Stockholm. He was granted a Senior Doctorate in Animal Science by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences in 2000. His research concerns animal-human relationships as shown by archaeological finds from various periods.

Book preview

1. Foreword

Some 10,000 years ago, a handful of animal species were first incorporated within the human habitat on a permanent basis. Their reproduction and well-being became directly dependent on their keepers. As domestication progressed, physical proximity became a mutual source of infectious disease and traumatic injuries for humans and animals alike. New zoonoses developed, "diseases and infections which are naturally transmitted between vertebrate animals and man" (Shakespeare 2002, 1). An evident example of such diseases is rabies, known to spread through dog bites to other animals and humans. This disease was described as early as the 13th century by, among others, Albertus Magnus (Walker-Meikle 2012, 47). The written record provides accounts of other epidemics threatening livestock as well as humans. A dramatic woodcut in the 1532 German edition of Francesco Petrarch’s 1492 De remediis utriusque fortunae (Medicine Against Both Fortunes II) shows a tumultuous plague scene in which victims not only include people, but also a horse, a dog, a cat, a rooster, and even a perching bird (Figure 1). Recent outbreaks of epidemics in Europe, such as blue tongue in the summer of 2006, as well as foot and mouth and BSE in cattle, sheep and pigs have directed attention to the dramatic impact of modern zoonoses on human and animal populations (Vann and Thomas 2006). During 2010, the so-called ‘pig flu’ (H1N1 virus), yet another animal-related pandemic, directed attention to the inseparable nature of human and animal welfare. While the complexities of public health phenomena are far too subtle to be characterized using the patchwork of methodologies still being developed for the archaeological evaluation of animal bones, these epidemics clearly illustrate the large extent to which the health of people and animals have become intertwined throughout history (Figure 2).

Figure 1. Plague scene in the 1532 German edition of Petrarch’s book

Figure 2. Stray pig scavenging on an urban dump near Agra, India

It is however, not only epidemics, usually elusive from an archaeological point of view, that have emerged as people and animals have co-existed. In addition to physical closeness, modes of animal keeping and exploitation have continuously resulted in non-infectious diseases whose treatment or neglect can be recognized on the skeleton of ancient animals. Such phenomena not only reflect the health condition of livestock, but are characteristic of cultural attitudes towards animals. The slogan attributed to the 1904 Nobel Prize laureate Ivan Petrovich Pavlov: "Doctors treat people, veterinarians – humanity", is as relevant in our modern society as has been the special attention devoted to emotionally significant and/or valuable animals in the past.

Traditional animal palaeopathology was rooted in palaeontology, with little or no interest in the cultural aspects of animal disease. Animal remains recovered from archaeological deposits, however, are bona fide archaeological artefacts: they represent the cumulative effects of human decisions that in ‘man-made’ domesticates include choices made during an animal’s life including selective breeding and the treatment of disease. Implicit to the concept of this book is, therefore, the hypothesis that most pathological deformations in archaeozoological specimens were brought about by conscious or inadvertent human influence.

Wild animals appear at first glance rather peripheral to the archaeological study of animal disease. Once domestic animals appeared they provided the majority of meat for their human keepers and thus soon became the dominant component in archaeological bone assemblages. The statistical probability of finding odd pathological specimens among the few wild animal remains therefore radically decreased. In addition, aside from hunting injuries, only a relatively limited range of diseases affect the skeletons of game: natural selection rarely allowed the development of chronic conditions seen in domestic animals. It is this contrast however, that offers a new perspective in the palaeopathological study of wild animal remains.

As will be shown in the chapters to follow, a combination of emotion, knowledge and social communication can sometimes be clearly glimpsed behind the dry osteological evidence of animal morbidity from archaeological deposits. Given our recent cultural heritage there is sometimes a tendency to try and separate sacred and profane activities. Some forms of behaviour related to animals, healthy as well as diseased, were related to traditional ideologies embedded in ancient societies (Insoll 2004, 11–12). Special aspects of culture are reflected in the treatment of diseased or injured animals. This is especially important, because animals often incorporate powerful symbolic roles. One of the most convincing current examples is the treatment of elephants wounded by land mines in the Elephant Hospital run by the NGO ‘Friends of the Asian Elephant’ in Hangchatr District, Lampang, Thailand. Among the wide range of ordinary elephant diseases cured there, the humanitarian aspect of rehabilitating land mine victims carries a valuable ethical message that adds a new dimension to Pavlov’s bon mot (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Baby Mosha was injured by a landmine when she was only seven months old back in 2006. She has fully recovered using a prosthetic limb (FAE)

2. Introduction

This book is a review of zoological remains affected by disease and trauma recovered from archaeological deposits. The justification for the study of this special aspect of animal palaeopathology is twofold:

•   Knowledge of diseases in ancient animal populations can help in elucidating archaeological and historical trends in herding, animal welfare and attitudes toward animals.

•   Information on pathological processes from any time period contributes to the overall body of veterinary knowledge, giving some conditions – otherwise unavailable to modern-day veterinarians – a longer time depth.

For over two generations, pathological phenomena observed on animal remains have been described in individual site reports by many faunal analysts publishing together with excavating archaeologists. Such information, however, has often remained hidden as isolated curiosities in publications that were hard to come by. By the 1970s, reviews of pathological cases in archaeozoology began to appear (e.g. Haimovici and Hrisanidi 1969; Harcourt 1971; von den Driesch 1975; Siegel 1976; Van Wijngaarden-Bakker and Krauwer 1979). In her dissertation, Wäsle (1976) summarized information on animal morbidity from a great number of the archaeological site reports available at the time. During this time, Sándor Bökönyi (1926–1994; Figure 4), founder of institutionalized archaeozoology in Hungary (Bartosiewicz and Choyke 2002), considered contributing to the increasingly vivid discussion by synthesizing observations made on data he had recorded from archaeological sites in Hungary. Following the 1980 publication of John Baker and Don Brothwell’s (Figure 5) seminal volume Animal Diseases in Archaeology, however, the market would have been unlikely to accommodate two books on the same specialist topic, which was still narrowly defined at the time. He therefore abandoned plans to publish a book on his collection of pathologically modified bones.

The core of information compiled by Bökönyi included 52 unpublished bone specimens and 183 drawings and photographs of varying quality kept in the Archaeological Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (HAS). These numbers may look unimpressive considering the tens of thousands of ‘ordinary’ animal bones recovered from some excavations. Following Bökönyi’s untimely death in 1994, however, data gathering continued and the number of cases available for study multiplied. In spite of the notorious rarity of pathological specimens, this material began forming a sound basis for a new summary. In addition, in-depth research into the already existing archaeozoological literature has also become inevitable. Only following such preparations could the review and analysis of the material be attempted.

Figure 4. Sándor Bökönyi

Figure 5. Don Brothwell

Critics of this book will probably note that there has been a heavy emphasis on descriptive, macromorphological methods throughout the volume. Until recently, even in more advanced human palaeopathology, it has been, at most, radiography which tended to be used, rather than more invasive and relatively time-consuming histological techniques (Bell 1990, 85). The most sophisticated research methods have only been applied experimentally in the palaeopathological study of animals.

This volume, however, will probably be the last book dealing exclusively with animal palaeopathology in the methodological terms that prevailed during the second half of the 20th century. There have been real advances as broad ranges of histological, radiographic, immunological, molecular genetic, etc, data are gradually integrated into macromorphological descriptions. It is through these additions that our understanding of ancient animal disease and its cultural interpretation will be further improved.

Summation

Throughout this book constant references will be made to Baker and Brothwell’s (1980) ground-breaking work Animal Diseases in Archaeology, the first and only handbook devoted to the palaeopathology of archaeological animal remains published to date. Their book was never intended to be a diagnostic reference catalogue, although it has been used as such by many in the absence of other relevant information (Thomas and Mainland 2005, 2). Focusing on individual finds, however, not only falls short of integrating pathological information within a broader archaeozoological context, but also diverts attention from its cultural relevance. A diagnosis-centric approach has remained a nearly inevitable form of technical bias in animal palaeopathology. It should be replaced with the "conservative application of identification and quantification procedures" (Reitz and Wing 1999, 238) in zooarchaeology, which will always remain fundamental in inductive research using databases indispensable to understanding what lies behind a particular pathological phenomenon.

3. Basic concepts

The ornithologist, physician, and army officer Robert Wilson Schufeldt has been credited with having introduced the term palaeopathology from the Ancient Greek words palaios (ancient) and pathos (suffering) in volume 2 of the Standard Dictionary in 1885. The concept was consolidated by Sir Marc Armand Ruffer in 1913 (Marí i Balcells 2004, 129). While its complex, multidisciplinary vocabulary (derived from palaeontology, archaeology as well as medical and veterinary science) cannot be explained here in full detail, some relevant terms need to be discussed briefly. A special effort has been made to simplify jargon while providing scientific equivalents in Latin wherever the use of vernacular terms would have caused ambiguity. A small glossary at the end of the book contains less frequently used miscellaneous technical terms that may aid in orienting the non-specialist reader.

Widespread and specious arguments surrounding the correct usage of two closely related terms: ‘archaeozoology’ or ‘zooarchaeology’ have abounded in the literature since the late 1970s (for a most balanced recent summary see Reitz and Wing 1999, 3). By now both terms have come to mean the analysis of animal remains from archaeological sites. The hierarchical classification by Bobrowsky (1982, 181, fig. 1) suggests that zooarchaeology is applied archaeozoology with an archaeological emphasis. I would rather stress the parallel development of the two concepts as the source of difference (Bartosiewicz 2001): while in Eurasia archaeozoology is often practiced as a form of applied zoology, zooarchaeology in the New World and most English speaking countries tends to be concerned primarily with the cultural aspects of the analyzed zoological data from archaeological sites (Mengoni Goñalons 1988, 72).

There has also been concern over the possible confusion between archaeozoology and palaeontology, both being interpreted literally, as the study of excavated animal remains with little if any regard to their relevance to ancient culture (Olsen and Olsen 1981, 193). The Ancient Greek words arkhaios (primordial, ancient) and palaios (old) may be considered synonymous. Since the 17th century, however, the Late Latin term archaeologia has come to refer to the study of the past using the material remains of cultures. Meanwhile palaeontologia conventionally refers to the analysis of fossils to determine the structure and evolution of extinct animals and plants.

Rudolf Ludwig Carl Virchow (1821–1902; Figure 6) was a pioneer of medical pathology whose research among others involved anthropology and archaeology (Tildsley and Lakhani 1992, 7). Disease, by his definition "is a form of altered life and therefore is probably as old as life itself" (Virchow 1895a). It may thus be defined as "life under pathological conditions" (Haranghy 1959, 6).

The primary source of information in palaeopathology is a single tissue, bone. According to Nair et al. (1996: 2371):

Bone is a fiber-reinforced calcified tissue which is perpetually remodelling; this is a process controlled by the joint, but opposing, actions of the two major bone cells – the bone matrix-forming osteoblast and the bone matrix-resorbing osteoclast.

Bone structure adapting through remodelling is determined by three main sets of factors as summarized by Jubb et al. (1985, 35):

•   Inherited factors define the limits of bone size and shape.

•   Gravitation and mechanical forces influence bone modelling and remodelling resulting in structural variation.

•   Nutritional factors limit or permit the manifestation of inherited potentials.

Disease results from interactions between the individual’s genetic makeup and its ever changing environment. The relationships between effects of inheritance and environment on the individual are summarized in Figure 7. In palaeopathological studies, genotype, the set of inherited traits, needs to be considered first. Many such traits may remain latent in the animal, while others will be manifested. Another aspect of the individual is paratype which includes adaptation to the environment and condition, the (usually) reversible status of the individual. The extent to which manifested genetic traits hinder or help adaptation is determined by the individual’s constitution. Phenotype is the degree to which inherited potentials are realized through this complex set of relationships in a given environment. Disease – for example an inherited trait that disturbs adaptation and leads to a serious condition – thus contributes to phenotype. Morphology based palaeopathological research deals with the animal’s phenotype narrowed down to skeletal symptoms. Even this meagre information, however is represented only by fragmented and dispersed pieces of animal bone. Palaeopathology, therefore, focuses on a special aspect of ancient life through the narrow keyhole of skeletal anomalies.

Palaeopathological investigations in archaeozoology are also concerned with the cultural implications of animal disease. In more practical terms, disease is "an abnormality in the structure or function of the body" (Hillson 1986, 283). However, the definition of normal vs. abnormal is often contested, given the natural variability of animals and its explosion under domestication. As will be demonstrated, some inherited anomalies have become so common in domestic animals that they may be considered the norm rather than the exception.

Figure 6. Rudolf Ludwig Carl Virchow (BPK)

Figure 7. Concepts determining the phenotype of animal remains used in palaeopathological studies (explanation in text)

A lesion is any structural change in a body part resulting from injury or disease. Fortunately for the palaeopathologist, by the time a disease leaves an imprint on the skeleton, the lesion usually exceeds the boundaries of normal variation and structural changes tend to be related to impairment of function. It is important to remember, however, that archaeozoological finds represent only part of the lesion: disease in adjacent soft tissue of the living animal and anomalies in its metabolism cannot always be reliably reconstructed. Therefore, the archaeozoologist is faced with a host of possible interpretations for the symptoms observed on a bone.

Aetiology is the process through which disease develops. Understanding causalities is fundamental to proper diagnosis as well as to the cultural interpretation of pathological lesions on animal bone. In human palaeopathology "there is a dichotomy of viewpoints as to the lengths to which it is acceptable to go in attributing a cause to injuries observed …" (Wakely 1996, 76). She contrasts a report by Wells (1982) in which the historical reconstruction of individual injuries is carried to extremes with the cautious approach of Waldron (1989) who refrains from directly attributing classes of skeletal anomalies to concrete situations.

The prevalence of a disease in a statistical population is defined as the total number of diseased cases, divided by the number of individuals in the population at a given time. In medical and veterinary epidemiology it is an estimate of how common a pathological condition is within a living population over a certain period of time. Unfortunately, in archaeozoology both the number of individuals and the time interval are impossible to estimate precisely. Therefore, the term is used in a loose sense indicating the proportion of bone fragments with pathological lesions within the entire assemblage.

Analogous development of lesions is a term used in this volume for the formation of morphologically similar lesions, potentially caused by different pathological processes, such as exostoses (bony outgrowths) related to various forms of inflammation (Regöly-Mérei 1962, 139). Analogy is a theme of major concern, since even in modern veterinary medicine the aetiology of many similar bone lesions is poorly understood. Bone has a limited capacity to react to disease and, therefore, the causes tend to be more variable than the resulting effect. Analogy in an archaeological sense is also relevant here since the properties of a dynamic process can hardly be inferred from its static consequences (Cribb 1984, 164), in this case, the set of osteological symptoms preserved on scattered archaeological specimens.

Figure 8. Henle’s basic terminology of main anatomical directions in mammals

Homologous development of lesions means that the same disease may be manifested in a variety of ways, that is, structural changes in different parts of the body including the skeleton. Animals, however, were seldom accorded proper burials. Although during the course of routine achaeozoological identification only isolated osteological symptoms can be observed on single, disarticulated bones, during interpretation the animal as a whole should be kept in mind as much as possible.

Congenital means innate, ‘present at birth’. A congenital disease may or may not be inherited. For example, consequences of intrauterine trauma or infection are present at birth but are not genetic in origin, making the concept of congenital broader than simply ‘inherited’. Such fine distinctions, however, are usually impossible using excavated animal remains. Therefore the term is usually avoided in this book.

Figure 9. Basic correspondences between the limb bones of the human and quadrupedal mammalian skeleton. Legend: S= scapula; H= humerus; R+u= radius and ulna; Mc= metacarpus; Ph= phalanges; P= pelvis; F= femur; T+f= tibia and fibula; Mt= metatarsus (Kolda 1936)

Anatomical nomenclature conforming to the 1967 international standard (Nomina Anatomica Veterinaria; Fehér 1980, 15) was used for both the 3D orientation of directional terms (developed by Friedrich Gustav Jakob Henle; Figure 8) and skeletal elements. Veterinary science, even in the form reduced to the treatment of ordinary livestock, is confronted with particular conditions in half a dozen species of diverse sizes and skeletal makeups. In spite of the clear structural and functional differences between the skeletons of humans and large mammals (Figure 9), they are built upon the same body plan. This means that their limb segments consist of a single long bone near the body (stylopodium: the humerus and femur), usually two long bones in the next limb segment (zygopodium: radius/ulna and tibia/fibula), a series of wrist or ankle bones (carpals and tarsals), then the hand or foot bones (metapodium: metacarpals/metatarsals and, finally, phalanges). While understanding these terms requires at least basic familiarity with the human skeleton, their detailed explanation would be far beyond the scope of this work. This information, however, is commonly available in many textbooks on both veterinary anatomy and archaeozoology, as well as in classics such as Elisabeth Schmid’s 1972 Atlas of Animal Bones.

Basic terms of archaeozoology have been used as recently recommended by Reitz and Wing (1999, 10). The single, basic units mentioned in this book will be referred to as [pathological] specimens. These are usually only fragments of skeletal elements. At the top of this hierarchy are individuals (whose skeletons are composed of elements), sometimes found in an articulated position. In this relatively rare case, the term pathological specimen may be logically extended to the entire individual or its preserved parts.

Assemblage, rather than ‘sample’, is the expression preferred for the usually arbitrary set of animal remains brought to light from the same excavation (the term ‘fauna’, used synonymously, should be avoided). The number of identifiable specimens (NISP) is used in the basic characterization of assemblages. The word ‘sample’ implies that such a data set is random as well as representative of a broader statistical population. Regrettably, this is rarely the case with zoological finds from archaeological sites, a point that becomes especially important in the evaluation of sporadically occurring pathological specimens. The situation is better when series of pathologically modified bone specimens can be analyzed against the background of large representative assemblages. In such cases the statistical probability of observations can be properly tested.

Taphonomy, a concept introduced by Ivan Antonovich Efremov (1940), is concerned with the post-mortem effects that modify, or even destroy, the animal skeleton and tend to whittle away the information content upon which scientific conclusions are based. As such, it is the discipline that helps in appraising and interpreting the loss of osteological information after death between the complete skeleton and the reduced set of its remains that comprise the archaeological assemblage. The selective preservation and recovery of skeletal elements has a direct bearing on how precisely a disease can be identified. Bones involved in locomotion are subject to more stresses in the live animal than other skeletal elements and therefore develop a denser matrix. Such bone can better withstand taphonomic processes. Thus, if elements were going to be recovered with pathological lesions, it would be expected that skeletal regions that are most resistant would be over-represented (Shaffer and Baker 1997, 259). Some taphonomic factors may alter the bone, thereby producing so-called pseudopathologies, phenomena easily mistaken for lesions by inexperienced analysts. As Lyman (2010) has recently summed up: "… the role of taphonomy is to identify biases that affect the interpretation of the faunal record so that these can be discussed when presenting the results of an analysis". Evidently, taphonomic loss and the resulting bias are of key importance in differential diagnosis and palaeopathological interpretation.

Summation

The topic of this book is emphatically multidisciplinary. Thus, it is important to define how the study of pathological symptoms observed on animal remains from archaeological sites is related to methodologically similar but fundamentally different research in palaeontology and human palaeopathology. In addition to the definitions of basic concepts and terms borrowed from medical and veterinary science, important archaeological concepts such as assemblage size and taphonomy must also be taken into consideration and understood as they will have a recurring impact on the palaeopathological interpretations outlined in the chapters to follow.

4. History of studying pathological animal remains

Different foci on archaeozoological finds over the years have gradually built towards animal palaeopathology as is known today. The first known medical reference to a pathological case of excavated animal bone was made by Felix Platter (1583). Long bones of enormous sizes came to light near Reyden (Canton Luzern, Switzerland) in 1577. After seven years of debate as to whether they belonged to fallen angels, they were taken to Platter, a renowned professor of anatomy in Basel. Upon examination, he attributed the fossil mammoth bones to a human disease, gigantism. Identified as remains of ‘der Wilder Mann’ a mythical figure of early medieval lore, the burghers of Luzern adopted the image of giants as protectors of the city’s coat of arms (Bartosiewicz 2006a; Figure 10).

Figure 10. Giants holding the coat of arms of Luzern, Sutherland, commemorating the 1577 discovery of bones attributed to ‘der Wilder Mann’ (Bartosiewicz 2006a)

Beginning largely at the time of Enlightenment, Ubelaker (1982, 337) distinguished four phases in the subsequent development of human palaeopathological studies that broadly apply to animal remains as well:

•   1774–1870, focus on Quaternary fauna.

•   1870–1900, focus on human traumas and syphilis.

•   1900–1930, focus on infection and medical interventions.

•   1930–1990, focus on disease within an ecological context.

•   1990–today, quantification, epidemiological approach.

Since palaeontological research considerably pre-dated the mid-19th century emergence of archaeozoology, during the first phase, most palaeopathological specimens described originated from extinct Pleistocene mammals. The earliest pathological animal bone specimen documented in Hungary appears in a book written by Count Luigi Ferdinando Marsigli (1726). In his survey of abandoned Roman fortifications along the Danubian limes Marsigli, an Italian naturalist and military engineer described proboscid bones from Pleistocene alluvial deposits as remains of Roman war elephants. Although his truly archaeozoological interpretation – i.e. the attribution of animal bones to cultural context – turned out to have been erroneous, one of the bones subsequently identified as the mandible of a mammoth (Elephas primigenius Blumenbach, 1799) displayed alveolar bone proliferation on the labial surface.

Systematic palaeopathological research on animals began half a century after Marsigli’s work. Johann Friedrich Esper (1774a) analyzed fossil cave bear (Ursus spelaeus Rosenmüller and Heinroth, 1794) remains in southern Germany. Taxonomic confusion, however, has remained a problem in palaeopathology: the prominent German pathologist, anthropologist, archaeologist and politician Rudolf Virchow (1872), pronounced the 1856 find of a Neanderthal as originating from modern Homo sapiens (Linnaeus, 1758). The curious morphology he observed was attributed not to a special place in human evolution, but rather a bad case of rickets. Virchow interpreted the flattened shape of the skull as resulting from powerful blows to the head.

The emergence of archaeozoology long post-dated the pathological study of fossils. Classical animal palaeopathology had become an established discipline (e.g. Mayer 1854a) by the time the concept køkkenmødding (kitchen midden) was first introduced in Denmark for prehistoric marine shell deposits. These middens preserved archaeological artefacts (Forchhammer et al. 1851–1856) thereby demonstrating the artefactual nature of the context itself. The study of animal remains from archaeological sites, archaeozoology, began with this discovery. The zoologist member of that team, Japetus Steenstrup (1813–1897; Figure 11), devoted a number of ground-breaking studies to hunting injury in Mesolithic game in Denmark (Steenstrup 1870; Figure 12), a much discussed topic at a time when trauma was in the focus of human palaeopathology as well. Flint projectile points were reported in a red deer (Cervus elaphus Linnaeus, 1758) mandible by Nilsson (1868, 211) from Jutland, Denmark, and from the second lumbar vertebra of an aurochs (Bos primigenius Bojanus, 1827) skeleton from Skåne, Southern Sweden (Nilsson 1868, 211, pl. xi).

It was, however, Ludwig Rütimeyer’s systematic research on the prehistoric fauna of Swiss pile dwellings that defined archaeozoological research in Central Europe (Rütimeyer 1861). Charles Darwin (1861) praised his work as "the most important contribution on domestic races ever published". In Canada, Wintemberg (1919) directed attention to archaeological animal finds as a source of zoological information, including pathological phenomena.

Figure 11. Johannes Japetus Smith Steenstrup (KB)

Figure 12. Flint flakes embedded in the ribs (top) and mandible (middle and bottom) of red deer from Mors, Jütland and Svenstrup, Seeland in Denmark (Steenstrup 1870)

To a great extent, 20th century animal palaeopathology developed on the fringes of investigations into ancient human disease. The first comprehensive work in 567 pages by Roy Lee Moodie (1880–1934; Figure 13), however, summarized data on disease in plant, animal and human palaeontology (Moodie 1923a). While that vast volume was criticized for its "tendency to be digressive" (Sarton 1924, 111), a concise and somewhat popular presentation of the same topic was published in the same year (Moodie 1923b). The next palaeopathology book of a synthetic nature that dealt exclusively with animal remains (both invertebrate and vertebrate), was published by András Tasnádi Kubacska (1902–1977; Figure 14) in Hungarian (Tasnádi Kubacska 1960) who had studied animal disease on the basis of palaeontological finds since the 1930s (then publishing under the name Kubacska). This work was translated into German (Tasnádi Kubacska 1962) and earned the author the prestigious title of Doctor of Sciences granted by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences.

Figure 13. Roy Lee Moodie

Figure 14. András Tasnádi Kubacska (HAS)

The upsurge in animal palaeopathological review articles during the 1970s was a qualitative result of such data having been accumulated in a completely inductive manner over 25–30 years of modern archaeozoological research: palaeopathology was studied in a new way after World War II and saw a really rapid expansion from the 1960s and 1970s with the advent of New Archaeology (Binford 1962; 1968a–b). Along with increasing environmental consciousness in the 1960s, many archaeologists developed an in-depth interest in ancient environments including their manifestations in the health of past human and animal populations. Emphasis began to be placed on animal remains as essential in studying past environments. New Archaeology stimulated this process by adopting scientific principles in the development of theories (Goodman and Martin 2002, 14):

In the late 1960s an interdisciplinary field was born with a coherent theoretical underpinning and questions to be answered, such as the relationship between agricultural intensification and population development.

This research trend was subsequently paralleled in animal palaeopathology (Baker 1984). Meanwhile, human "paleopathology was connected to epidemiology and demography … new techniques coming from clinical and laboratory medicine allowed a much more secure diagnosis" (Aufderheide and Rodríguez-Martín 1998, 7).

However, there seems to have been a long-lasting lull following the first palaeopathological book with an entirely archaeozoological focus by Baker and Brothwell (1980). While increasing research activity, especially by the Animal Palaeopathology Working Group of the International Council for Archaeozoology (ICAZ), resulted in three valuable conference proceedings (Durham: Davies et al. 2005; Nitra: Miklíková and Thomas (eds) 2008; Kaunas: Daugnora (ed.) Veterinarija ir Zootechnika Volumes 40–41), and two volumes on work-related articular disorders were also published (Bartosiewicz et al. 1997a and Grupe et al. (eds) 2008), a comprehensive review of the subject has long been overdue.

The late last century peripheral status of pathological studies in archaeozoology can be best appraised in two authoritative books on either side of the Atlantic Ocean. Benecke (1994, 15) summarized data from mainstream archaeozoology on the basis of largely Old World literature. A comparably comprehensive work by Reitz and Wing (1999, 321–326) described primary data in zooarchaeology from a North American perspective (Table 1).

Table 1 represents an object lesson in the differences between the inductive vs. deductive approaches to ‘archaeozoology’ and ‘zooarchaeology’ respectively. Traditional archaeozoology in Central Europe builds theory from individual observations while zooarchaeology breaks down general theory into testable hypotheses. The first similarity, a coincidental listing of seven items in both columns, is at best of cabalistic significance. The only other feature common to both lists is that pathological studies appear near the very bottom, regardless of the difference in ruling academic traditions in the Old and New Worlds respectively.

Table 1. The position of palaeopathological research with regard to the two major trends in faunal studies in archaeology

The low ranking of this subject matter in Table 1 does not result from ignorance or poor judgement. It simply reflects reality, as palaeopathological data in archaeozoology are rare and poorly understood. Consequently, they tend to be published in a haphazard fashion. Since the late 1990s, developing standardized protocols for the systematic documentation of palaeopathological evidence has become increasingly important (Bartosiewicz et al. 1997; Dobney and Ervynck 1998; Vann and Thomas 2006; Bendrey 2007; Thomas 2008).

Summation

The protracted development of palaeopathology as a discipline mirrored on a lesser scale the emergence of archaeology and palaeontology during the 19th century. The systematic study of pathologically modified animal bones from archaeological sites, however, is a relatively new subject: animal palaeopathology began with the study of disease in fossil, that is, wild animals. Pathological lesions are just as likely to occur in wild as domestic settings only the animal has a better chance to survive under the ‘protection’ of human keepers. By the late 20th century, archaeozoology in Central Europe and the Near East became largely concerned with the history of domestic animals. In Table 1, ‘modifications and pathologies’ are listed within the umbrella term of domestication by Reitz and Wing (1999). However, Berry (1969) warned that it