Mays S
Research Department, Historic England, Fort Cumberland, Fort Cumberland Road, Eastney, Portsmouth PO4 9LD, UK.
Int J Paleopathol. 2018 Dec;23:88-95. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpp.2017.10.011. Epub 2017 Nov 22.
This article considers the nature of written sources on the epidemiology of rickets in the post-Mediaeval period, and examines the value of these sources for palaeopathologists. There is a progression from 17th-18th century sources, which generally make ex cathedra, qualitative statements on rickets frequency to, in the 19th century, semi-quantitative geographical surveys of its occurrence, through to reports of percentage prevalence in various groups. Of course, even these latter cannot be directly compared with prevalences calculated from excavated skeletal remains, but there are also considerable difficulties in comparing them with one another, and this effectively precludes synthesis to provide reliable information on geographic and temporal trends at anything more than a very broad-brush level. Their problematic nature mandates a cautious approach when using written sources to shed light on the epidemiology of rickets. For palaeopathologists, a useful way of incorporating these sources into a biocultural approach may be to use them in order to formulate hypotheses that can then be evaluated using skeletal evidence.
本文探讨了中世纪后期有关佝偻病流行病学书面资料的性质，并审视了这些资料对古病理学家的价值。从17至18世纪的资料来看，通常是权威性的定性论述，阐述佝偻病的发病频率；到了19世纪，则发展为对其发病情况的半定量地理调查，进而出现了不同群体患病率百分比的报告。当然，即使是后者也无法直接与根据出土骨骼遗骸计算出的患病率相比较，而且将它们相互比较也存在相当大的困难，这实际上排除了进行综合分析以提供任何超出非常粗略层面的关于地理和时间趋势可靠信息的可能性。其问题性质决定了在利用书面资料来阐明佝偻病流行病学情况时需谨慎对待。对于古病理学家而言，将这些资料纳入生物文化研究方法的一种有效方式可能是利用它们来提出假设，然后再用骨骼证据进行评估。
