|WikiProject Archaeology||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Medicine / Pathology||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
The added content to the article is nice but the editor took out all mention of soft-cell paleopathology. I find this especially odd since they use Aufderheide (aka "the mummy doctor") as a source.
In truth, it wasn't so much that it was taken out, as it wasn't in to start with. The original stub was merely the small amount at the top of the page. I did not wish to put in facts without checking them first though so to date have only entered those pieces of information I've been able to check. Hopefully I will be able to add more in the future, unless others are able to do so first.
The following paragraph desperately needs citation:
Archaeologists increasingly use paleopathology as an important main tool for understanding the lives of ancient peoples. For example, cranial deformation is evident in the skulls of the Maya, showing that they considered a person beautiful if they had a straight line connecting their nose with their forehead. Another pathology common to Mesoamerica is seen in women. Bone spurs and other deformities in the knees, toes, and backs of women show that their days spent grinding maize to make flour takes its toll on their bodies. Also, evidence for trepanation, or drilling holes in the skull to relieve excess pressure, is also common. Skulls with multiple holes show that some patients survived this procedure many times, because the bone has begun to knit back together.
Recent Theories Section
This is an interesting addition, but I am concerned about a couple of things. Firstly, it feels a little less than neutral. This sentence in particular bothers me:
...uninformed modernist perceptions skewed by human urban populations' rough times in the dark ages, and more towards an informed and enlightened comprehension of the relative luxury, abundance, and ease of life in pre-agricultural times.
It feels a little too strongly worded for true neutrality. Would it be possible to edit slightly?
The other point is to ask whether we can support the argument about how influential those particular papers are? Do we have references for other works who have been heavily influenced by those original authors? Silverthorn 12:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)