The Bayeux Tapestry: a charter of a people and a unique testimony of creative imagery in communication

Medieval surgery (eleventh-thirteenth century): barber surgeons and warfare surgeons in France

PURPOSE

From the eleventh to the thirteenth century, three major events marked surgery in France: the appearance of an epidemic linked to ergotism which led to numerous amputations, the emergence of barber surgeons for civilian practice, and the organization of war surgery for the First Crusade.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

If a certain separation between medicine and surgery had appeared at the beginning of the Middle Ages, it would have been from 1215 (at the time of the Lateran Council) that the real separation between medicine and surgery was made. Before this date, the surgery was done by the clergy (monks) who had some experience of surgical practice. After the Council de Lateran, the barbers will take charge of the surgery.

RESULTS

In the Middle Ages, the first cause of amputation was linked to poisoning by ergot of rye, intoxication due to the ingestion of contaminated bread. Due to ergotamine-related vasoconstriction, many patients will die with a frequency ranging from 10 to 20% in times of starvation. For survivors, gangrenes will lead to amputations made at the beginning by monks, then by the barber surgeons after 1215. With the name of barber surgeon, barbers are initially responsible for small surgical procedures, then for amputations given the epidemics linked to ergotism which led to numerous amputations. By this practice, they will acquire the knowledge of anatomy and the knowledge of the surgery. Apart from this civilian practice of surgery carried out by barber surgeons, the military practice of surgery will appear with the conquests of England and the start of the crusades which will require a more professional organization of surgery.

CONCLUSION

After 1371, as only barbers surgeons had some surgical practice, their knowledge surpassed knowledge of the university. This supremacy of the barber surgeon over the surgeons of the university will be demonstrated by Ambroise Paré.

Eye Injuries across history and the evolution of eye protection

PURPOSE

To describe the history of eye injuries and the consequent evolution of eye protection.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of Medline and the grey literature using the terms 'ocular trauma' and 'eye protection' or 'injury prevention' and 'history'. References were used to identify other relevant publications. Publications were classified according to the setting of eye injury: occupational, recreational or combat-related.

RESULTS

Eye protection has been described in a wide range of sources, including in literature and art. With advances in eye protection material and design, as well as government and societal promotion of appropriate eye protection usage in the workplace, the epidemiology of ocular trauma has changed over time. In developed countries, the use of eye protection in the workplace has reduced the proportion of occupation-related eye injuries over the last century, with a higher proportion occurring during sports or at home. New protection devices and policies have evolved to meet this change.

CONCLUSION

Vision loss has broad implications for the individual and for society and despite available prevention strategies, ocular trauma is a significant cause of preventable monocular and bilateral vision loss. The use of appropriate eye protection has reduced the burden of ocular trauma. History provides lessons for informing current eye protection and eye injury prevention strategies.

The mystery of the missing Viking helmets

Based on archaeological finds and old Norse literature, this study describes the Scandinavian helmet tradition from the Bronze Age to the Viking Age, as well as the Viking culture, with special emphasis on weaponry and head protection. Contrary to what is commonly believed, the study shows that metal helmets must have been used very infrequently by the Vikings. In fact, only one Viking helmet has been retrieved in Scandinavia. Possible reasons for the widespread misconception that the Vikings wore helmets are discussed, and the responsibility for not correcting this misunderstanding is placed with the archaeological profession.