I have been collaborating for about 10 years with vets who are specialists
in equine orthopedics and pathology. It is my feeling that this
collaboration has been very fruitful and altogether worthwhile. My research
project would have been impossible without their input. Of course, every
research problem is different and every vet is different (as is every
archaeozoologist/zooarchaeologist). I don't think that archaeozoologists
should assume that they have nothing to learn from vets.
Marsha
On Aug 18 2005, Terry O'Connor wrote:
>That's a nice idea from Erik. However, although I am not at all averse
>to having well-lubricated conversations with veterinarians, we have the
>additional problem that most working vets see very little bone
>pathology, apart from routine fractures. In particular, they do not see
>the sort of chronic conditions that afflicted livestock in the past, but
>which would be either treated or terminated today. Maybe this is one
>topic for which zooarchaeology will have to work up its modus operandi
>from scratch, rather than borrowing from human palaeopath or from vets,
>however friendly!
>
>Terry
>
>
>
>***********************************
>Prof Terry O'Connor
>Department of Archaeology
>University of York
>Kings Manor
>York YO1 7EP
> http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/arch/staff/OConnor.htm
>Editor, International Journal of Osteoarchaeology
>http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5488
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Analysis of animal remains from archaeological sites
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Erik Filean
>Sent: 17 August 2005 19:54
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: [ZOOARCH] Ankylosing Spondylitis
>
>
>
>In a message dated 8/17/2005 11:36:04 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
>[log in to unmask] writes:
>
>Stephanie's email has opened up a real problem area in animal
>palaeopathology, namely the tendency to apply terms from human
>palaeopath to conditions in other species that APPEAR to present the
>same clinical signs. Ankylosing spondylitis is a quite specific
>pathology of the human skeleton, with a particular aetiology. We may see
>a similar ankylosis in other species, but really shouldn't be applying
>the 'human' terms simply on the basis of similar appearance. That, of
>course, begs the question as to what terminology we should use. What do
>others think?
>
>
>I agree that there is a real danger in conflating human with nonhuman
>pathology based on purely visual criteria. Unfortunately, without a
>clear definition of the cause and aetiology of a given animal pathology,
>I don't know how a zooarchaeologist can suggest a valid term. We
>probably need to buy drinks for some veterinarians and be very, very
>nice to them to come to grips with this.
>
>
>"...and those that would not bond with us, we ate."
>- Harry, Third Rock from the Sun -
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Dr. Marsha Levine, McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research
University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3ER, England
phone: +44 (0)1223-339347 / fax: +44 (0)1223-339285
http://www.arch.cam.ac.uk/~ml12/
|