An approach to matters of health in prehistory that I have found useful is to consider first the general health of a group, and second the specific evidence of disease. In Table 6.1 are listed several general indicators of health. Some, such as age at death and stature, may often be assessed with minimal equipment, which does not necessarily mean they are always easy to determine. Others, such as radiological assessment of bone structure, require more complex technology. Whatever the technology, these indicators often may be determined on most members of a group from the past and therefore contribute to a general statement about the health of the group. Usually they all point in the same direction; that is, they are consistent in suggesting that a group was relatively healthy, unhealthy, or whatever, and thus work well in comparisons between different groups. By contrast, the occasional pathological lesion, if sometimes spectacular, simply indicates the expected – cells can run amuck in anyone. An example would be the isolated finding of an osteosarcoma; its existence tells us nothing about the particular conditions under which the group as a whole lived, or even the general state of health and nutrition of the individual with the tumour. Of course the finding of bony indicators of a particular disease widespread in a group is informative (and that could include osteosarcoma), but the point is that while that euphonious term ‘palaeopathology’ often claims the fascination, more basic matters relating to growth and age and diet usually tell a lot more about the existence of people in the past.