This question connects to AQA's A-level Archaeology course; unit 3, world archaeology.
Archaeologists face certain problems when trying to determine the size and health of past populations. One of these problems to do with health is that a large portion of the population must be studied to attain an understanding of the general health of said population. Individuals can be used but may not represent the whole group. If a large portion of the population for some reason is unable to be studied the wrong conclusions may be drawn. The nature of the evidence left behind must also be taken into consideration. This means that diseases which do not commonly effect bone may not be found even when it was present in the person, also the misdiagnosis of past ailments in medical literature can be a problem, as well as causes of death named that modern medicine does not recognise. Issues that limit to what extent an archaeologist can determine the size of past populations start with the lack of evidence hunter-gather groups leave behind. This missing information therefore must be filled in from other sources.
An example of a case study which had the majority of a past population available, was Spitalfields. This would have greatly benefitted the archaeologists in determining the health of that past population. In this case study over 300 skeletons were found in London in varying states of health. Because of the large sample archaeologists were able to find the most common causes of death, them being- old age, consumption, fever and smallpox. In this way the health of the population was revealed through what caused the most deaths. Also the study found many other types of aliments which seem to have not been life threatening, such as broken bones. In the crypt sample 9% of males and 5% of females had one or more fractures to one or more bones. This also suggests something about the medical care available to them.
If the study of an individual taken from the crypt sample found at Spitelfields was taken as a representative of the whole group a very different story of the health of the population would have been painted. For example if the archaeologists had chosen Thomas Mecham or his wife Anne Mecham, the population of Spitalfields would have been believed to be drunks. Since they died from asciles of the abdomen, an issue created by large intakes of alcohol on a regular basis due to their occupations as victuallers (people who sell alcohol).
Medical literature such as the Bills of mortality 1775 provide further insight into the health of a past population. But it also causes problems as discussed prior. An example of this problem, that past ailments made not be recognised in modern medicine, is the deaths of 11 people in 1775 and the cause of death being listed as ‘evil’. Modern connotations of this can be guessed at but no one really knows what killed these people.
Ethnographic studies of the Kung San help to reveal the missing evidence about the population sizes of hunter-gatherer societies. Settlement theories can also help this in some way, as they help to work out the population size based on the land available and the evidence found. These can include central place theory, thiessen polygons and settlement hierarchies. Settlement hierarchies can be used because they help to determine the zone of influence of major centres and boundaries. The carrying capacity of the land can also be taken into consideration when assessing how archaeologists can determine the size of past populations.
Can be difficult to determine size but if archaeologists combine one or two of the methods already mentioned you can be fairly sure to have a viable answer. The general health of a past population and to this day has many different factors that can effect it, therefore mistakes can easily be made due to the nature of the evidence and the fact many diseases do not appear in bones, bones sometimes being the only physical clues to health left behind. To conclude archaeologists can never truly know the size or health of a population but it can be reasoned that they get close to the correct figures and the correct answer.
An example of a case study which had the majority of a past population available, was Spitalfields. This would have greatly benefitted the archaeologists in determining the health of that past population. In this case study over 300 skeletons were found in London in varying states of health. Because of the large sample archaeologists were able to find the most common causes of death, them being- old age, consumption, fever and smallpox. In this way the health of the population was revealed through what caused the most deaths. Also the study found many other types of aliments which seem to have not been life threatening, such as broken bones. In the crypt sample 9% of males and 5% of females had one or more fractures to one or more bones. This also suggests something about the medical care available to them.
If the study of an individual taken from the crypt sample found at Spitelfields was taken as a representative of the whole group a very different story of the health of the population would have been painted. For example if the archaeologists had chosen Thomas Mecham or his wife Anne Mecham, the population of Spitalfields would have been believed to be drunks. Since they died from asciles of the abdomen, an issue created by large intakes of alcohol on a regular basis due to their occupations as victuallers (people who sell alcohol).
Medical literature such as the Bills of mortality 1775 provide further insight into the health of a past population. But it also causes problems as discussed prior. An example of this problem, that past ailments made not be recognised in modern medicine, is the deaths of 11 people in 1775 and the cause of death being listed as ‘evil’. Modern connotations of this can be guessed at but no one really knows what killed these people.
Ethnographic studies of the Kung San help to reveal the missing evidence about the population sizes of hunter-gatherer societies. Settlement theories can also help this in some way, as they help to work out the population size based on the land available and the evidence found. These can include central place theory, thiessen polygons and settlement hierarchies. Settlement hierarchies can be used because they help to determine the zone of influence of major centres and boundaries. The carrying capacity of the land can also be taken into consideration when assessing how archaeologists can determine the size of past populations.
Can be difficult to determine size but if archaeologists combine one or two of the methods already mentioned you can be fairly sure to have a viable answer. The general health of a past population and to this day has many different factors that can effect it, therefore mistakes can easily be made due to the nature of the evidence and the fact many diseases do not appear in bones, bones sometimes being the only physical clues to health left behind. To conclude archaeologists can never truly know the size or health of a population but it can be reasoned that they get close to the correct figures and the correct answer.
No comments:
Post a Comment