Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 January 2015
This investigation has been carried out to determine if any useful archaeological information can be obtained from the pathological features to be found in ancient human dentitions. Variations in dental decay, attrition, ante-mortem loss of teeth, and malocclusion have been observed in skulls from the Neolithic to Anglo-Saxon periods. Diet has been shown to be a major factor in the aetiology of dental disease and since diet is also related to social conditions it ought to be possible to derive some information from teeth concerning culture.
An intractable difficulty in this study is that the skeletal remains of the more ancient civilizations are comparatively rare (n. 1). The material that does exist is often unsatisfactory because of fragmentary condition and sometimes inadequate excavation reporting. Data has to be derived from small samples which may give a misleading picture. Another difficulty lies in the definition of pathological features; for example, the term malocclusion allows broad interpretation which has resulted in wide variations in frequencies observed. In this case specialist orthodontists tend to find a much greater incidence for a particular period than less experienced operators (n. 2). Post-mortem changes may also confuse the picture since in some soils erosion occurs which may simulate caries. Archaeological samples are nearly always drawn from widely differing backgrounds so that the size of the sample and the length of the period it represents may vary greatly. Brinch and Moller-Christensen say it is quite unjustifiable to compare results drawn from such samples (n. 3).
* I would like to record my thanks to Professor J. M. T. Charlton of Keele for help and advice given during the preparation of the paper, and Mr Don Brothwell of the British Museum (Natural History) for his comments and criticisms. Also to the curators of the following museums who gave me facilities to examine skulls:— British Museum (Natural History), Sheffield Museum, Stockport Museum, Birmingham Medical Museum, Birmingham Public Museum, Odontological Museum, Royal College of Surgeons, London, and the Heathcote Museum, Birchover, Derbyshire.
(1) D. R. Brothwell in (ed. D. R. Brothwell), Dental Anthropology, London, 1963, 271.
(2) J. R. E. Mills, in Brothwell, ibid. 29.
(3) O. Brinch and V. Moller-Christensen, Odont. Tidskr., 1949, 4, 357.
(4) J. R. Mummery, Trans. Odont. Soc., 1870,2, 7.
(5) D. R. Brothwell, Proc. Nut. Soc., 1959, 18, 59.
(6) D. R. Brothwell, J. Roy. Anthrop. Inst., 1961, 91. 318.
(7) K. M. Christophersen and P. O. Pedersen, Dental Record, 1939, 59, 575.
(8) D. R. Brothwell, Appendix III in S. Piggott, The West Kennet Long Barrow, London, 1962.
(9) C. Cooke and T. C. Rowbotham, J. Dent. Res., 1958, 37, 4, 753.
(10) J. L. Hardwick, Brit. Dent, J., 1960, 108, 1.
(11) P. Broca, Bull. Soc. Anthrop. Paris, 1879, 2, 128.
(12) A. E. W. Miles, Proc. Roy. Soc. Med., 1962, 55, 10, 881.
(13) H. F. Humphreys, Arch. J., 1938, 23.
(14) G. T. Emery, North Staffs. J.F.S., 1962, 2, 33.
(15) R. Hertweg, Bull, et Mém. Soc. Anthrop. Paris, 1945, 71-113.
(16) G. Ward, Brit. Dent. J., 1962, 112, 1, 10.
(17) D. R. Brothwell and H. G. Carr, Brit. Dent. J., 1962, 113, 6, 207.
(18) Cicero, De Legibus, ii, 24.
(19) H. H. Stones, Oral and Dental Diseases, Edinburgh, 1954, 3rd, 193.
(20) A. P. Rogers, Amer. y. Ortho. & Oral Surg., 1939. 25. 1.
(21) R. Selmer Olsen, Dental Record, 1937, 57, 465.
(22) K. C. Smyth, Trans. Brit. Soc. Stud. Ortho., 1933.
(23) J. P. Heathcote, y. Derby Arch. Soc., 1930, 1936, 1938, iv, x, xii.
(24) J. and C. F. C. Hawkes, Prehistoric Britain, London, 1953, 4th, 33.
(25) Ibid., 53.
(26) Ibid., 102.
(27) Sir J. E. Sandys, A Companion to Latin Studies, 1913, Cambridge, 205.
