Objectives

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.

Conclusions

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.

Suggestions for future research

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.

中文翻译：

---

耸人听闻和向公众讲话：古病理学中的科学严谨和跨学科合作。

目标

在这篇简短的通讯中，我们讨论了古病理学出版物中有关科学严谨性的问题，尤其是在临床或普通科学杂志上发表的研究，这些研究利用骨骼分析来阐明历史人物的生死或解释“神秘的”组合或葬礼。我们着重指出了方法论严谨性与缺乏跨学科交流之间的关系，并讨论了这如何导致向公众展示科学上薄弱而轰动的叙述。

结论

尽管大多数涉及考古人类遗体分析的知名出版物在方法上都是合理的，并得到了很好的解释，但其他出版物由于缺乏对人类学方法和道德观念的认识而遭受了科学上的严格要求。当新闻界强调这些出版物时，耸人听闻的叙事就长期存在，可能对我们的学科表现不佳，并给公众对我们工作的不切实际的期望。

对未来研究的建议

我们建议，高调的古病理学研究的最佳实践包括招募来自临床科学，人类学和人文科学的众多作者和评论者，考虑与回顾性诊断有​​关的道德问题，以及与新闻界就固有局限性保持透明在这种工作中。