Abstract
In this brief communication we discuss issues concerning scientific rigour in palaeopathological publications, particularly studies published in clinical or general science journals, that employ skeletal analysis to elucidate the lives and deaths of historical figures or interpret “mysterious” assemblages or burials. We highlight the relationship between poor methodological rigour and lack of interdisciplinary communication, and discuss how this can result in scientifically weak, sensational narratives being presented to the public.
Although most high profile publications involving analysis of archaeological human remains are methodologically sound and well interpreted, others have suffered from poor scientific rigour stemming from an apparent lack of awareness of anthropological methods and ethics. When these publications are highlighted by the press, sensationalistic narratives are perpetuated which may reflect poorly on our discipline and give the public unrealistic expectations about our work.
We suggest that best practice in high-profile paleopathological research include recruitment of a range of authors and reviewers from clinical sciences, anthropology, and the humanities, consideration of the ethical issues surrounding retrospective diagnosis, and transparency with the press in regards to the limitations inherent in this kind of work.