The Guardian has an interesting archaeological report today about an analysis of medieval skeletons from Cambridge which was looking for evidence of cancer. The results suggest a greater prevalence - ten times higher - than had been thought hitherto, and it may also be that other cancers had left less evidence. The suggested profile is lower than that today, but that can probably be explained by factors that were not present, or not to the same extent in the medieval period.
This is clearly a subject for specialists but it strikes me as being much more realistic than the very low figures assumed beforehand when compared with the diffusion of cancers in the modern population. It will be interesting to see if any other studies, using the same or similar approaches, from other centres reveal the same patterns.
The report can be read at Cancer in medieval Britain not as rare as thought, research suggests
1 comment:
As average life expectancy then was far lower than now, and cancer more often than not afflicts those of advanced age, I would expect the rates then to be lower if only because most people died of something else such as an infection before they were of an age to contract cancer.
On the other hand, they spent longer outdoors in the sun, and when indoors would be hunched round smoky fires with poor ventilation. They also probably ingested more lead and arsenic in their food and water than we do today, and both of these are carcinogenic.
Regards
John (Ramsden)
Post a Comment