两个学科的故事：在人类骨学和动物考古学中教学和记录病理学的不同方法

IF 1.3 3区地球科学 Q3 PALEONTOLOGY

International Journal of Paleopathology Pub Date : 2025-06-02 DOI:10.1016/j.ijpp.2025.05.002

Ellen Green

{"title":"两个学科的故事：在人类骨学和动物考古学中教学和记录病理学的不同方法","authors":"Ellen Green","doi":"10.1016/j.ijpp.2025.05.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To provide a snapshot of the current differences in pathological analysis between human osteology and zooarchaeology.</div></div><div><h3>Materials</h3><div>A survey was posted on Bluesky Social, Twitter (X) and emailed to both the British Association of Biological Anthropology and Osteoarchaeology (BABAO) and the Zooarchaeology JISC list-serve mailing lists. Eighty one survey responses were analysed for this study.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>The survey comprised 12 questions assessing the level of education, attitudes towards pathological recording, and approaches to recording specific lesions amongst practitioners. The answers to these questions were split into two groups, zooarchaeologists and human osteologists and then compared.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Human osteologists are more confident in their ability to both recognise and record pathology than zooarchaeologists. This aligns with their more frequent pathological analysis, as well as the greater amount of formal training on the subject in human osteology.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>The greatest difference between the two disciplines is the amount of formal training, and this likely is one of the main causes of the lack of standardisation in zooarchaeology. While improvements are being made, it is necessary to further integrate pathological analysis into zooarchaeological courses.</div></div><div><h3>Significance</h3><div>This study provides a starting point for further development of both disciplines by identifying the current state of affairs.</div></div><div><h3>Limitations</h3><div>Survey data is always subjective, particularly when accessing long form answers. The sample size is small and it is also not ideal to judge lesion recording from photos, which can be difficult to access.</div></div><div><h3>Suggestions for further research</h3><div>A more comprehensive survey incorporating examples of taphonomic damage as well as a wider range of lesions would help to further illuminate the differences between the disciplines.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48817,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Paleopathology","volume":"50 ","pages":"Pages 19-28"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A tale of two disciplines: Differential approaches to teaching and recording pathology in human osteology and zooarchaeology\",\"authors\":\"Ellen Green\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ijpp.2025.05.002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To provide a snapshot of the current differences in pathological analysis between human osteology and zooarchaeology.</div></div><div><h3>Materials</h3><div>A survey was posted on Bluesky Social, Twitter (X) and emailed to both the British Association of Biological Anthropology and Osteoarchaeology (BABAO) and the Zooarchaeology JISC list-serve mailing lists. Eighty one survey responses were analysed for this study.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>The survey comprised 12 questions assessing the level of education, attitudes towards pathological recording, and approaches to recording specific lesions amongst practitioners. The answers to these questions were split into two groups, zooarchaeologists and human osteologists and then compared.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Human osteologists are more confident in their ability to both recognise and record pathology than zooarchaeologists. This aligns with their more frequent pathological analysis, as well as the greater amount of formal training on the subject in human osteology.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>The greatest difference between the two disciplines is the amount of formal training, and this likely is one of the main causes of the lack of standardisation in zooarchaeology. While improvements are being made, it is necessary to further integrate pathological analysis into zooarchaeological courses.</div></div><div><h3>Significance</h3><div>This study provides a starting point for further development of both disciplines by identifying the current state of affairs.</div></div><div><h3>Limitations</h3><div>Survey data is always subjective, particularly when accessing long form answers. The sample size is small and it is also not ideal to judge lesion recording from photos, which can be difficult to access.</div></div><div><h3>Suggestions for further research</h3><div>A more comprehensive survey incorporating examples of taphonomic damage as well as a wider range of lesions would help to further illuminate the differences between the disciplines.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48817,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Paleopathology\",\"volume\":\"50 \",\"pages\":\"Pages 19-28\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Paleopathology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"89\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1879981725000233\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"地球科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PALEONTOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Paleopathology","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1879981725000233","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PALEONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

目的概述目前人类骨学与动物考古学在病理分析方面的差异。一项调查被发布在蓝天社会，推特(X)上，并通过电子邮件发送给英国生物人类学和骨考古学协会（BABAO）和动物考古学JISC列表服务邮件列表。本研究分析了81份调查回复。方法调查包括12个问题，评估从业人员的教育水平、对病理记录的态度和记录特定病变的方法。这些问题的答案被分成两组，动物考古学家和人类骨学家，然后进行比较。结果与动物考古学家相比，人类骨学家对自己识别和记录病理的能力更有信心。这与他们更频繁的病理分析，以及在人类骨学方面更多的正式培训相一致。结论两个学科之间最大的差异在于正规培训的数量，这可能是动物考古学缺乏标准化的主要原因之一。在不断改进的同时，有必要进一步将病理分析融入动物考古学课程。意义本研究通过认清现状，为这两个学科的进一步发展提供了一个起点。调查数据总是主观的，特别是在获取长篇答案时。样本量小，从照片中判断病变记录也不理想，难以获取。对进一步研究的建议一项更全面的调查，包括地名损伤的例子以及更广泛的病变，将有助于进一步阐明学科之间的差异。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

A tale of two disciplines: Differential approaches to teaching and recording pathology in human osteology and zooarchaeology

Objective

To provide a snapshot of the current differences in pathological analysis between human osteology and zooarchaeology.

Materials

A survey was posted on Bluesky Social, Twitter (X) and emailed to both the British Association of Biological Anthropology and Osteoarchaeology (BABAO) and the Zooarchaeology JISC list-serve mailing lists. Eighty one survey responses were analysed for this study.

Methods

The survey comprised 12 questions assessing the level of education, attitudes towards pathological recording, and approaches to recording specific lesions amongst practitioners. The answers to these questions were split into two groups, zooarchaeologists and human osteologists and then compared.

Results

Human osteologists are more confident in their ability to both recognise and record pathology than zooarchaeologists. This aligns with their more frequent pathological analysis, as well as the greater amount of formal training on the subject in human osteology.

Conclusions

The greatest difference between the two disciplines is the amount of formal training, and this likely is one of the main causes of the lack of standardisation in zooarchaeology. While improvements are being made, it is necessary to further integrate pathological analysis into zooarchaeological courses.

Significance

This study provides a starting point for further development of both disciplines by identifying the current state of affairs.

Limitations

Survey data is always subjective, particularly when accessing long form answers. The sample size is small and it is also not ideal to judge lesion recording from photos, which can be difficult to access.

Suggestions for further research

A more comprehensive survey incorporating examples of taphonomic damage as well as a wider range of lesions would help to further illuminate the differences between the disciplines.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

International Journal of Paleopathology PALEONTOLOGY-PATHOLOGY

CiteScore

2.90

自引率

25.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： Paleopathology is the study and application of methods and techniques for investigating diseases and related conditions from skeletal and soft tissue remains. The International Journal of Paleopathology (IJPP) will publish original and significant articles on human and animal (including hominids) disease, based upon the study of physical remains, including osseous, dental, and preserved soft tissues at a range of methodological levels, from direct observation to molecular, chemical, histological and radiographic analysis. Discussion of ways in which these methods can be applied to the reconstruction of health, disease and life histories in the past is central to the discipline, so the journal would also encourage papers covering interpretive and theoretical issues, and those that place the study of disease at the centre of a bioarchaeological or biocultural approach. Papers dealing with historical evidence relating to disease in the past (rather than history of medicine) will also be published. The journal will also accept significant studies that applied previously developed techniques to new materials, setting the research in the context of current debates on past human and animal health.